Search for: "Lee v. LEE" Results 3081 - 3100 of 7,966
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Supreme Court five days after the government filed its petition in Lee v. [read post]
10 Oct 2016, 2:20 pm by Native American Rights Fund
Supreme Court Bulletin http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2016-2017update.html Petition for Certiorari was granted in Lee v. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 6:51 am by Jim Sedor
The money followed a legal but circuitous route turbocharged by the 2014 ruling in McCutcheon v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 1:18 pm by John Elwood
Lee, 15-955, are patent owners questioning the constitutionality of a proceeding called inter partes review. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 7:49 am by Sandy Levinson
Lee Optical Co. or placing high barriers to entry by would-be florists is worth taking seriously. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 10:32 am by Immigration Prof
Crimmigration and the Void for Vagueness Doctrine, Jennifer Lee Koh, Western State College of Law, 2016 Wisconsin Law Review __ (forthcoming, 2016) Abstract: Since the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Johnson v. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 4:56 am by Edith Roberts
Coverage of last week’s cert grant in Lee v. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 3:08 am by Kevin LaCroix
  Other Important Business-Related Cases In addition to the securities law-related cases, there are some other business-related cases that will be worth watching:   Lee v. [read post]
2 Oct 2016, 7:39 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
Descarga y lee las entrevistas a los gobernadores de Puerto Rico (PDF) Entrevistas a: Lcdo. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 5:15 am by Edith Roberts
” A preview of key cases on the court’s docket, including today’s grant in Lee v. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 2:32 pm by Daily Record Staff
Criminal procedure — Motion to suppress evidence — Traffic stop This is an appeal from Timothy Lee Mercer’s 2015 conviction, in the Circuit Court for Howard County, for driving while under the influence of alcohol. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 12:24 pm by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch In its decision in this trademark registration case, the Federal Circuit found the statutory prohibition against registering “disparaging marks” an unconstitutional governmental regulation of speech in violation of the First Amendment. [read post]