Search for: "United States v. Close"
Results 3461 - 3480
of 14,190
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2020, 9:01 pm
As the Court put it four years ago in Fisher v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 2:13 pm
Shortly after State Street the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its decisions in State Street Bank and Alappat in AT&T Corp. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 2:58 pm
From Bragg v. [read post]
13 Jan 2008, 6:36 am
To take the best-known precedent, after World War II the United States prosecuted German government lawyers in the second round of Nuremberg trials. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 12:00 pm
Oregon can never be one of the United States. [read post]
22 Sep 2006, 1:26 pm
Using these cases as precedent, the court noted that the defendant's auction listing stated he would ship anywhere in the United States. [read post]
29 May 2013, 9:01 pm
Americans United for Separation of Church and State represents Galloway and Stephens. [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 7:57 am
United States, 139 Fed. [read post]
4 Aug 2014, 5:53 am
State v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 4:26 am
Hardy & Maile v. [read post]
19 Aug 2013, 5:50 am
The two most closely watched cases, Amgen, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 8:11 am
But two closely watched petitions will not be gaining admission to the court. [read post]
25 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
In 2019, the Second Circuit said in United States v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 8:49 pm
California and United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2014, 5:21 pm
Sept. 10, 2014), the Federal Circuit invalidated a patent claim as being indefinite under a new standard set forth by the Supreme Court of the United States in Biosig v. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 7:56 am
Although this view of insider trading can be justified by the policy objectives underlying the Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 8:24 am
United States Levin v. [read post]
7 Jan 2011, 11:28 am
--Court: United States District Court for the Western District of WashingtonOpinion Date: 12/17/10Cite: Edifecs Inc. v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 6:29 pm
This is a close case. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 4:00 am
The reason the Court had occasion to consider whether the Second Bank of the United States was validly chartered by the United States was because if it was (as the Court held it was), then it was an instrumentality of the United States and therefore immune to taxation by a state. [read post]
