Search for: "United States v. Chicago"
Results 301 - 320
of 3,524
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2010, 6:09 pm
Clarke v. [read post]
30 Oct 2008, 11:04 pm
The case is DiCosolo v. [read post]
25 Feb 2012, 8:20 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 1:06 am
DC) where the the appointment of Margaret Peterlin to the position of Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office was alleged to be unlawful because she is not a "citizen of the United States who has a professional background and experience in patent or trademark law" as required under 35 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Mar 2010, 7:00 am
” David Hudson, analyzing United States v. [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 4:52 am
Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court decided a case that may have a major effect on nursing home claims throughout the United States. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 4:20 pm
United States District Court, N.D. [read post]
31 Dec 2007, 1:36 pm
City of Chicago , 104 N.E. 1104 (1914). [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 7:36 am
Maldonado v. [read post]
8 Mar 2014, 1:23 pm
But recently, the United States Supreme Court held in Salinas v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 4:58 pm
In Vilchis v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 10:08 am
By Bradley Graveline and Jennifer Driscoll-Chippendale On June 17, 2013, the United States Supreme Court announced a rule that blurs the lines between antitrust and patent law in the context of Hatch-Waxman litigation. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 2:25 pm
In Illinois v. [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 5:48 am
United States and Black v. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 10:24 am
McAdams, Reforming Entrapment Doctrine in United States v Hollingsworth, 74 U Chi L Rev 1795 (2007) Thomas J. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 12:48 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 May 2010, 1:06 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Jan 2021, 2:40 pm
Getting into the United States is relatively easy. [read post]
10 Mar 2011, 10:51 am
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 3:19 pm
Federal district judges in Chicago are now split over whether to follow the Illinois appellate court’s landmark non-compete decision, Fifield v. [read post]
