Search for: "United States v. Ginsburg" Results 341 - 360 of 3,213
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Sep 2020, 3:55 pm by CAFE
Supreme Court, opinion & dissent, 5/29/07 United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 3:50 pm by The Federalist Society
The Supreme Court therefore affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 7:10 am
United States (08-5274). [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 11:09 pm
The Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Herring v. [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 5:08 pm by Mark Tushnet
United States -- Justice Ginsburg: "You haven't answered directly why the Bill of Rights does constrain the treaty power, the implementation of it, Reid v. [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 6:41 am
United States, No. 13-10639, two Justices -- Anthony M. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 4:29 am
The United States Supreme Court decided yesterday a malicious prosecution/RICO case with a Fourth and Fifth Amendment implication yesterday: Wilkie v. [read post]
4 Sep 2012, 12:39 am by Lawrence Solum
The Judicial Conference of the United States did adopt a version of the Model Code, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 8:15 am
Today's second and final ruling issued in United States v. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 2:31 pm by The Federalist Society
In an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held that (1) Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in toner cartridges sold in the United States through its "Return Program"; and (2) Lexmark cannot sue Impression Products for patent infringement with respect to cartridges Lexmark sold abroad, which Impression Products acquired from purchasers and imported into the United States, because an authorized sale outside the United States,… [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 4:15 am by Eileen McDermott
Justices Breyer, Kavanaugh, Ginsburg and Gorsuch and Chief Justice Roberts were among the most active questioners of Malcolm Stewart, representing the government of the United States, and Morgan Chu of Irell & Manella, representing NantKwest, during yesterday’s oral argument in Peter v. [read post]