Search for: "Ward v. United States" Results 341 - 360 of 699
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Sep 2012, 6:44 am by Kiran Bhat
United States, including the Eleventh Circuit’s mixed decision “striking down and upholding various portions” of Alabama’s H.B. 56 immigration law. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 1:45 pm
Our long-term goals are ambitious—the end of overbroad surveillance of all digital communications, a recognition of the privacy rights of people outside the United States, and strong accountability and oversight for surveillance practices. [read post]
13 Sep 2019, 6:17 am
The contested patents involve a compound patent owned by Gilead and a second medical use patent owned by the government of the United States. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 8:13 am by Jennifer Farer
On March 4, 2014, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court decided its first case under Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower protection provision, Section 806. [read post]
11 Mar 2021, 4:19 am by Dennis Crouch
Question:Whether, pursuant to the United States’ obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, codified at 19 U.S.C. [read post]
26 Feb 2010, 1:05 pm by Erin Miller
  When the Court abruptly changed its mind in 1989, effectively eviscerating the Griggs standard in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. [read post]
27 May 2022, 1:54 pm by Andrew Hamm
United States 21-1428Issue: Whether, to establish a violation of Brady v. [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 11:32 am by Joseph D. Kearney
Around the same time, the United States produced a plat that identified the (northern-more) area east of Michigan Avenue as “public ground for ever to remain vacant of buildings. [read post]
23 May 2016, 12:15 am
Federal Circuit Distinguishes Enfish in New Patent Eligible Subject Matter DecisionThe patentability of computer-implemented inventions has been in doubt in the United States since the U.S. [read post]
28 May 2013, 5:05 am by Schachtman
Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd., [2002] EWCA Civ 605, [2002] 3 All E.R. 385 (holding that copying does not invalidate a court’s decision); id. at para. 41 (citing United States v. [read post]