Search for: "United States v. Stanford" Results 261 - 280 of 1,234
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jan 2011, 7:10 am by Nabiha Syed
Lopez and United States v. [read post]
22 Mar 2007, 12:46 pm
United States, a 1943 case in which the Court overturned a defendant's conviction because a U.S. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 5:15 am by Edith Roberts
United States and Shaw v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 12:44 pm
United States ex rel., Karen T. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 6:11 am by Adam Chandler
Plata and Citizens United v. [read post]
23 Mar 2007, 9:57 am
Millett, Assistant to the Solicitor General, argued on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae in support of respondent. [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 12:47 pm by adminssean
The United States Supreme Court extended the right to confront witnesses to the laboratory technicians who examine and test physical evidence that is offered to prove guilt. [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 1:45 pm
The United States's amicus brief is available here. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 5:17 pm
Patry was employed in the United States Copyright Office in the Library of Congress and as Copyright Counsel to the US House of Representatives, Committee on Intellectual Property. [read post]
4 May 2010, 8:51 am by Anna Christensen
Supreme Court’s holding nearly two hundred years ago in United States v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 6:00 am
United States and United States v. [read post]
23 Dec 2019, 12:52 pm
§ 285Enforceable Patent Rights to Research Institutions and their Exclusive LicenseesAppeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California in Nos. 3:13-cv-00651-JLS- MDD, 3:13-cv-00830-JLS-MDD, 3:13-cv-01015-JLS-MDD, Judge Janis L. [read post]
1 Mar 2007, 10:20 am
On Tuesday, the Court heard argument in Winkelman v. [read post]
21 Mar 2008, 7:18 am
Following Goldsmith was Thomas Hungar, Deputy Solicitor General, arguing on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting the petitioners. [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 4:46 am
" Additionally, Goodyear points out that the limitations period was not at issue in Bazemore because claims brought by the United States were not subject to section 706(e). [read post]