Search for: "Smith v. Smith"
Results 341 - 360
of 16,071
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jan 2024, 9:59 pm
Noonan -- One of the many changes introduced into U.S. patent law by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act were provisions for post-grant review (PGR) and inter partes review (IPR). [read post]
7 Jan 2024, 3:45 am
Here is the complaint: Babbitt v. [read post]
6 Jan 2024, 11:19 am
Issue summary is from ScotusBlog, which also links to papers: Smith v. [read post]
5 Jan 2024, 4:36 pm
I also think the Jack Smith prosecution of Trump is unconstitutional. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 9:41 am
Arizona and the SG, and some of the other supporting amici as well, raise once more the supposed multi-witness problem – i.e., the idea that if the Confrontation Clause is deemed to require that an analyst in the position of Rast testify subject to confrontation then there will often have to be a parade of lab witnesses. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 8:21 am
These summaries will be added to Smith’s Criminal Case Compendium, a free and searchable database of case summaries from 2008 to the present. [read post]
4 Jan 2024, 4:04 am
McCarty v. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 1:31 pm
Calcutt v. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 9:00 am
"La entrada de las versiones originales de Mickey y Minnie al dominio público es notable, no solo por la popularidad de los personajes, sino también porque ésta se aplazó por casi cuatro décadas", escribe la licenciada Carolene Fontanet Smith (Saldaña, Carvajal & Vélez-Rivé, PSC). [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 7:15 am
State v. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 7:09 am
Supreme Court, Colorado Republican State Central Committee v. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 5:00 am
Smith (Marva) v. [read post]
2 Jan 2024, 2:13 am
ATTORNEY’S FEES ■Jose Parra, Applicant v. [read post]
31 Dec 2023, 9:43 am
Smith fue una señal. [read post]
29 Dec 2023, 2:52 pm
July 19, 2007) (concluding that the "defendants' description of [the plaintiff] as a racist" was, as a matter of law, "an opinion and thus is not actionable"); Smith v. [read post]
29 Dec 2023, 11:00 am
While the readers may remember that in InterDigital v Lenovo [2023] EWHC 539 (Pat) Mellor J adopted an exclusionary approach with comparables, disregarding most and eventually relied on a single prior licence LG 2017 to derive all the rates in that Judgment, Marcus Smith J differed from that approach and considered that at least in this case, the comparables only have value if an inclusive approach is taken. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 4:43 pm
I’m hoping to write more in a few days on the Arizona and SG briefs in Smith v. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 10:22 am
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. [read post]
27 Dec 2023, 8:47 pm
Smith v. [read post]
26 Dec 2023, 9:02 pm
In 1997, in Boerne v. [read post]
