Search for: "Lowe v. United States" Results 3141 - 3160 of 4,753
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2012, 6:58 am by Leland E. Beck
In yesterday’s episode of the Medicare hospital disproportionate share (DSH) payment saga, the United States District Court for the for the District of Columbia vacated a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “policy” adopted in a 2004 final rule preamble that was not adopted as a rule until 2007. [read post]
12 Nov 2012, 4:14 pm by Schachtman
United States, 346 F.2d 52, 54 (5th Cir.1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 976 (1966). 615 F. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
” The bar for originality is low; it requires only a “modicum of creativity. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
The Software and Information Industry Association, arguing that “the Copyright Act contains the flexibility to deal with unforeseen applications of section 602″, says: In the same way that Congress did not intend to cabin section 602’s application to copies from countries with a shorter term or compulsory licenses, the legislative record provides no evidence that it intended its application to situations where a trademark owner adds a copyrightable insignia or label on goods… [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 1:56 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
As to Lowe's opposition, the majority stated that "[t]he Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in declining to consider the affidavits of the purported experts proffered by Lowe, since Lowe failed to identify the experts in pretrial disclosure and served the affidavits after the note of [*7]issue and certificate of readiness attesting to the completion of discovery were filed in this matter" (id. at 863 [emphasis added]). [read post]
21 Oct 2012, 9:46 am by Lawrence Taylor
It went to the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
17 Oct 2012, 6:12 pm by Rick St. Hilaire
Homeland SecurityThe investigation and arrest of Prokopi is an outgrowth of the civil forfeiture case of United States v. [read post]
10 Oct 2012, 11:49 am by Christopher F. Lonegro
Perhaps anticipating the private sector’s broad interest in the issues to be considered, the court waived the usual requirement for third parties to obtain leave of the court before filing an amicus brief and specifically invited the United States Patent and Trademark Office to state its views. [read post]