Search for: "State v. Mems"
Results 261 - 280
of 787
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2022, 9:13 am
State v. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 9:40 am
(mem. op.) [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 12:38 pm
Steel Co. v. [read post]
4 Feb 2012, 6:29 am
Mem’l Hermann Hosp. [read post]
6 Feb 2016, 5:06 am
State v. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 5:14 am
That the Kleins may do something in the future is not sufficient to state actual damages nor does it show that plaintiff was negligent (Kahan Jewelry Corp. v Rosenfeld, 295 AD2d 261, 261, 744 NYS2d 664 (Mem) [1st Dept 2002] [finding that pending foreclosure actions meant plaintiffs had not yet sustained any actual damages]). [read post]
8 Sep 2014, 7:15 am
(mem. op., internal citations omitted); see In re Gulf Exploration, LLC, 289 S.W.3d 836, 839–41 (Tex. 2009) (quoting Perry Homes v. [read post]
23 Nov 2014, 7:32 am
State v. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 4:44 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 11:55 am
Tracy v. [read post]
31 Jul 2015, 3:00 am
Huff v. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 4:56 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Apr 2014, 11:16 am
Cone Mem’l Hospital v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 2:00 am
Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 995 S.W.2d 569, 571 (Tenn. 1999) (relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 580 B (1977)). [read post]
30 Jan 2008, 6:28 am
Allen, __ U.S. __, No. 07-395, 2007 WL 4248619 (Dec. 5, 2007) (mem.); Schwab v. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 4:42 pm
(They'll feel good about themselves while serving their revocation sentences).United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 12:26 am
In the first article in this series I looked at the US approach to the role of the inventor in patent law and practice, and at the recent decision of Judge Leonie M Brinkema in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (‘EDVA’) upholding the USPTO’s decision to refuse two patent applications on the basis that the ‘AI’ machine DABUS is not a human being and therefore cannot be an inventor under US law (Stephen Thaler v Andrew… [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 12:26 am
On 2 September 2021, Judge Leonie M Brinkema in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (‘EDVA’) rejected Dr Stephen Thaler’s appeal against the USPTO’s decision to refuse two patent applications on the basis that DABUS is not a human being and therefore cannot be an inventor under US law (Stephen Thaler v Andrew Hirshfeld and the US Patent and Trademark Office, Mem. [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 12:26 am
In the first article in this series I looked at the US approach to the role of the inventor in patent law and practice, and at the recent decision of Judge Leonie M Brinkema in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (‘EDVA’) upholding the USPTO’s decision to refuse two patent applications on the basis that the ‘AI’ machine DABUS is not a human being and therefore cannot be an inventor under US law (Stephen Thaler v Andrew… [read post]
1 Oct 2021, 12:26 am
On 2 September 2021, Judge Leonie M Brinkema in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (‘EDVA’) rejected Dr Stephen Thaler’s appeal against the USPTO’s decision to refuse two patent applications on the basis that DABUS is not a human being and therefore cannot be an inventor under US law (Stephen Thaler v Andrew Hirshfeld and the US Patent and Trademark Office, Mem. [read post]
