Search for: "State v. Main"
Results 2861 - 2880
of 11,546
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2007, 1:54 pm
The opinion: Kahle v. [read post]
8 Apr 2014, 4:18 pm
Smith v. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 5:40 pm
In Scherer v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 10:33 am
The requirement of authentication was at issue in a recent opinion issued by the Maine Supreme Court: State v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 3:01 pm
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 12:20 pm
State v. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 7:14 am
In Lifson v. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 10:13 am
This morning, the Supreme Court granted cert in DOT v. [read post]
17 Apr 2011, 11:17 pm
This agreement simplifies state tax systems, removes burdens to interstate commerce that are defined in the United States Supreme Court decision in Quill Corp. v. [read post]
17 May 2021, 10:01 pm
Trucking Ass’n v. [read post]
29 Nov 2015, 6:24 pm
The main case used in calculating this amount is Bardal v. [read post]
24 Nov 2020, 4:04 pm
Previously, he had headed a State-owned company. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 4:42 pm
In Helferich v. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 1:19 am
Actavis initiated proceedings to revoke the patent, arguing that it was obvious (among other points), with the matter ultimately ending up with the Supreme Court.The main point of contention in the case is section 3 of the Patents Act 1977, which sets out that "…an invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art". [read post]
23 Aug 2018, 6:30 am
In other words, it encouraged false false testimony (which is very different than the claim that snitching should be illegal because its disloyal).The main case was U.S. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 1:19 am
Actavis initiated proceedings to revoke the patent, arguing that it was obvious (among other points), with the matter ultimately ending up with the Supreme Court.The main point of contention in the case is section 3 of the Patents Act 1977, which sets out that "…an invention shall be taken to involve an inventive step if it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art, having regard to any matter which forms part of the state of the art". [read post]
1 Apr 2021, 6:42 am
The rare en banc vote was 7-5.The case is Francis v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 9:38 am
The main issue on appeal in Sanderson v. [read post]
7 Sep 2014, 5:30 pm
The case of Deckmyn v Vandersteen (Case C-201/13) on parody considers a set of questions related to the right to freedom of expression conflicting with copyright, and the impact of the Information Society (Infosoc) Directive 2001/29. [read post]
31 Mar 2008, 8:46 pm
Maine and Vermont are the only states that allow felons to vote while incarcerated. [read post]
