Search for: "State v. Still"
Results 3501 - 3520
of 44,561
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2007, 12:03 am
In KSR, the Supreme Court stated that even if a claimed invention passes the TSM test, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may still reject a patent claim using things such as "common sense. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 9:25 am
Several states are considering non-exam pathways to licensure. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 1:49 pm
DiCarlo and State v. [read post]
14 Jan 2024, 9:01 am
” Case citation: Mahoney v. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 11:50 am
Arar v Ashcroft is an example of this last category (although the court found that a Bivens action was not available because of state secrets considerations rather than directly under the state secrets doctrine). [read post]
21 Dec 2007, 2:47 am
The 9th pointed out that the Supremes define prohibited, and that the state, unless it restored all guns rights completely, would still fall under ACCA. [read post]
9 Oct 2013, 7:57 am
See Owen v. [read post]
24 Sep 2023, 9:01 pm
As we discuss further in Section IV, SB 264 is also the subject of a constitutional and statutory challenge in the federal courts in the case of Shen v. [read post]
20 Jul 2010, 6:40 am
United States v. [read post]
3 Jun 2008, 5:20 am
" State v. [read post]
3 Mar 2023, 4:59 am
Donati v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 12:03 pm
, Kumho Tire Co. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 9:09 am
Ball State * Another School Violated a Stud [read post]
23 May 2011, 7:49 am
The Haro v. [read post]
12 Oct 2018, 7:06 am
There are many situations in which a defendant who you might assume is negligent can still avoid liability due to a particular state law. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 3:08 pm
However, evidence of calibration is still required. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 9:16 am
US v. [read post]
18 Dec 2015, 12:03 pm
Justice Macaulay stated in Lubick v. [read post]
26 Aug 2024, 9:37 am
(according to Wikipedia, 6 Ford appointees are still on the bench in senior status). [read post]
2 Dec 2024, 6:16 am
’” In making that finding, Mehta had quoted the Supreme Court’s strict test for incitement in the landmark case of Brandenberg v. [read post]
