Search for: "State v. Z. A. B." Results 281 - 300 of 418
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2010, 2:47 pm by Beck, et al.
Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1261 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[b]are bones accusations. . .without any supporting facts” held “insufficient”); Aponte-Torres v. [read post]
6 Nov 2008, 3:03 pm
Jury Unanimity: The State plead capital murder in a single count indictment with three separate paragraphs that Luna had committed capital murder during a a) burglary; b) robbery; and c) arson. [read post]
27 Dec 2014, 2:19 am by Ben
More from Europe: In Case C-355/12 Nintendo v PC Box the CJEU said that circumventing a protection system may not be unlawful. [read post]
27 Mar 2007, 11:29 pm
Apotex) (5/21/07)Preemption news (Levine v. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 12:00 am by Jan von Hein
Once jurisdiction applies, they must comply with the prudential requirements of those states. [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 1:17 pm by Cory Doctorow
" Instead of figuring out the whole route from A to Z, we deploy heuristics: rules of thumb that help us chart a course along this complex, adversarial terrain as we traverse it. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 6:00 pm
(Ars Technica) Battle between software patents and open source (IP Watchdog)   US Patents – Decisions District Court E D Texas: Jury finds in favour of Limelight on ongoing battle with Level 3 Communication over patents covering internet content delivery network technology (Law360) USPTO overturns patent for virtual subdomains filed by Ideaflood (Ars Technica)   US Patents – Lawsuits and strategic steps Bilski - Bilski petitions the Supreme Court to decide… [read post]
4 Oct 2008, 11:54 pm
Additionally, respected public health organizations worldwide have reviewed the data, and every major group has stated that food irradiation is a potential tool to protect the public health. [read post]
29 May 2024, 3:52 pm by Reference Staff
For scholarly publications, Rule 10.7.1(d) adds a descriptive parenthetical note for citing cases where an enslaved person was involved, and provides examples like “Wall v. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 4:16 am by Marie Louise
(Class 99) Component designs – General Court rules on informed user of a motor: Cases T 10/08 and T 11/08 Kwang Yang v OHIM – Honda (Class 99) Two stripes, three stripes and OUT: General Court decision in Case T-479/08 adidas v OHIM – Patrick Holding (Class 46) B&O speaker shape has appeal, so loses appeal: General Court decision in Case T-508/08 Bang & Olufsen v OHIM (IPKat) (Class 99) General Court upholds OHIM’s refusal of PAKI… [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 9:54 am
Chairman Liebman concurred in the denial of the motion for reconsideration for the reasons stated in footnotes 5 and 8 of the Board's Order denying the special appeals. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 2:12 pm by Kraft Palmer Davies, PLLC
At all times material, defendant Foss Maritime Company (Foss) was a corporation doing business in the Southern Division of the Western District of Washington, was the owner and operator of the tug JUSTINE FOSS and Barge Z Big 1, and employed plaintiff as a member of the crew of the tug JUSTINE FOSS. 3. [read post]