Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 2801 - 2820 of 29,814
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2018, 8:51 am by Gregory B. Williams
April 17, 2018), the Court granted defendant Amgen’s motion to dismiss the claim of plaintiffs Genetech and City of Hope (collectively “Genetech”) requesting a declaratory judgment that Amgen cannot market Mvasi before December 18, 2018. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 12:27 pm by Jon Sands
Bruguier, 735 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 2013)(en banc). [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 9:16 am by Pedro Celis
  The defendant—a commercial airline pilot—arrived to work drunk. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 2:33 pm by Jon Sands
Carranza, 289 F.3d 634 (9th Cir. 2002), the defendant need only know that he was importing some controlled substance, and was subject to the applicable mandatory minimum if it turned out that the controlled substance in question was of the proper type and of the minimum quantity. [read post]
24 Nov 2022, 6:55 am
Life Spine, 8 F.4th at 540; Composite Marine, 962 F.2d at 1266. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 8:33 am
  It found,     "[i]f a defendant is not legally culpable, it stands to reason that he should be able to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing because he is exempt from any punishment for the alleged acts constituting the crime, regardless of whether he committed them. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 10:47 am by Jon Sands
Under Lombera-Valdovinos, 429 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2005), a defendant who attempted reentry to be imprisoned and was under official restraint can not be convicted. [read post]
6 Jul 2010, 3:49 pm by Steven G. Pearl
., --- F.3d ----, 2010 WL 2612692 (9th Cir., July 1, 2010), the Ninth Circuit dismissed as improper an appeal from an order granting partial summary judgment.The defendants operated residential care facilities for developmentally disabled adults. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 3:40 am by John L. Welch
The Board dismissed petitioner's claims of genericness and fraud, but it ruled that by showing the mark to be "highly descriptive," the petitioner overcame the presumption arising from registration under Section 2(f) and the burden shifted to respondent to "defend its registration." [read post]