Search for: "Lowe v. State"
Results 3321 - 3340
of 9,642
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2022, 10:47 pm
Gilstrap, who is presiding over two Ericsson v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 9:12 am
”Id. at 1141-42 (various citations omitted).Courts in other states following this general approach are: Haygood v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 9:05 am
The concept was previously stated in Trs. of Columbia Univ. v. [read post]
2 May 2007, 2:21 pm
The Court stated that patentability will require more than “the results of ordinary innovation. [read post]
17 Jul 2018, 7:38 am
See Martin v. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 6:49 am
In Killion v. [read post]
30 Dec 2022, 12:04 pm
Navajo Nation v. [read post]
26 Dec 2015, 9:39 am
Gilberto ValleUnited States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2023, 5:08 am
As the CJEU held in BMS v. [read post]
2 May 2016, 6:21 am
It's one of the Solicitor General's tasks to represent the United States in court. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 3:43 pm
In Murray v. [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 12:14 pm
Absent a “a reasonably high degree of probability that the presumed fact follows from those proved directly” (People v Leyva, 38 NY2d 160, 166), “the danger . . . is that of logical gaps – that is, subjective inferential links based on probabilities of low grade or insufficient degree – which undetected, elevate coincidence and, therefore, suspicion into permissible inference” (People v Cleague, 22 NY2d 363). [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 12:20 am
GuestKat Peter Ling reports on this interesting decision.Richard Vary provides a guest contribution, in which he looks into the recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, which overturned a decision issued in December 2017 by Judge Selna in the Central District of California, instead going to a jury trial.Trade MarksGuestKat Léon Dijkman looks at the recent Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in Primart… [read post]
28 Feb 2016, 12:14 pm
Absent a “a reasonably high degree of probability that the presumed fact follows from those proved directly” (People v Leyva, 38 NY2d 160, 166), “the danger . . . is that of logical gaps – that is, subjective inferential links based on probabilities of low grade or insufficient degree – which undetected, elevate coincidence and, therefore, suspicion into permissible inference” (People v Cleague, 22 NY2d 363). [read post]
4 May 2019, 6:15 am
| Applying the Actavis questions to numerical limitations: Regen Lab v Estar | Formstein defence in the UK? [read post]
14 Oct 2015, 10:22 am
See Near v. [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 2:36 am
"Sierra Club v. [read post]
20 May 2013, 5:23 am
Rather unhelpfully for SL, his care co-ordinator gave expert evidence that while he suffered from anxiety, depression and low self-confidence, he did not need looking after. [read post]
18 Mar 2017, 12:53 pm
Compared with the rest of the country, they continue to provide the least support for the living standards, including the health care, of their low-income population. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 7:19 am
The General Court affirmed that the ORO marks could not be said to be scarcely distinctive, and Case T-344/03 Saiwa v OHIM-Barilla Alimentare (SELEZIONE ORO BARILLA could not be said to have established a precedent. [read post]
