Search for: "Chin v. State" Results 301 - 320 of 723
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2011, 6:46 am by Dr Mark Summerfield
  Justice Spender found that: claims 1 and 5 of the first innovation patent were not infringed by Bass, because the lowering of a chin plate or floor of the accused apparatus does not, in itself, allow or permit a fish to pass from the front to the exit of the device, as defined in the claims, but rather that, because additional components are involved, the mechanism in the Bass devices for achieving a unidirectional flow of fish is a substantially new or different mechanism to that… [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 3:41 pm
An individual may have an odor of alcohol but not be intoxicated or impaired within the legal definition as held in People v Miller and Mulvean v Fox. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 6:10 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
That's how this pro se litigant won his appeal in the Second Circuit.The case is Carris v. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 10:12 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Court of Appeals says he has a case under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.The case is Hogan v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 2:48 am
She faults these arguments for their (unintended) consequences, just as she faults the effect on impoverished women of the limitations of the privacy argument for Roe v. [read post]