Search for: "Leaders v. State" Results 3161 - 3180 of 7,103
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Sep 2017, 1:35 pm by Bill Otis
  Randy argued the Supreme Court case against the government's prohibition of medical marijuana in Gonzales v. [read post]
26 Sep 2017, 3:07 am by Lyle Denniston
  It did not get near the publicity and attention as did the Kent State incident, leading black leaders to object strenuously. [read post]
24 Sep 2017, 9:44 am by Mukarrum Ahmed
In fact, only a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State designated in an exclusive choice of court agreement shall be recognised and enforced in other Contracting States. [read post]
24 Sep 2017, 8:55 am by Walter Olson
But it does suggest state leaders should work to build consensus for comprehensive changes, instead of charging ahead with moralizing experiments. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 1:06 pm by Jacob Sapochnick
Image by Perzon SEO On September 19, 2017, the American Immigration Council in cooperation with Mayer Brown LLP, filed a lawsuit in federal district court on behalf of the National Venture Capital Association (National Venture Capital Association, et.al. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 1:36 am
It brought together opinion leaders in the law of innovation and technology from all over the world, including judges, litigators, patent attorneys, in-house lawyers and academics, to discuss one of the fundamental problems in patent law: the need to assess the prior art, and most notably inventive step (non-obviousness), without hindsight and knowledge of the invention. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 9:30 pm by Cary Coglianese
Much the same prospect could await today’s state and local leaders. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 11:51 am by Vanessa Sauter
Sarah Grant summarized Judge Cooper’s opinion on motion in limine in United States v. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 9:42 pm by Lisa Ouellette
The Court did carve out a possible workaround last Term in the wonderfully named Lewis v. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 3:20 am by Scott Bomboy
The Court directly addressed efforts by Arkansas state leaders to delay or ignore desegregation. [read post]