Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US" Results 2981 - 3000 of 4,554
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Apr 2013, 11:28 am by Ivan Cohen
The Court actually can sidestep a number of more difficult questions in patent law (about the precise meaning of the standard under Diamond v. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
 In a couple of circuits it is backed (at least arguably) by pre-TwIqbal appellate precedent authorizing use of Rule 12 standards in fraudulent joinder cases. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 9:45 am by Cynthia L. Hackerott
The algorithm has evolved over time, and the OFCCP has never officially announced or otherwise explicitly communicated to the public the precise algorithm. [read post]
17 Apr 2013, 7:49 am by Paul Horwitz
But it's at least valuable to have a more precise understanding of what they're doing, rather than use "history" as a catchall label or judge their efforts by the standards of a related but different field altogether. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 12:50 pm by John Elwood
Phillips12-544Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit conflicted with the “reasonable likelihood” materiality standards of Napue v. [read post]
16 Apr 2013, 7:42 am by Gritsforbreakfast
(They appear to be applying the same standard that's presently required under CCP 18.21 Sec. 14 for the sort of "mobile tracking devices" that SCOTUS addressed in US v. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 9:00 pm by John Dean
The “expectation of privacy” standard was developed under the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 5:50 am by John Dean
The “expectation of privacy” standard was developed under the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. [read post]