Search for: "Williams v. Federal District Court"
Results 3621 - 3640
of 3,648
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jan 2007, 11:56 pm
District Court for the Northern District of California refused to dismiss the claims, leaving many questions unanswered. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 5:23 am
"Manifestly absurd," complains dissenting Judge William Fletcher of Judge Graber's statutory interpretation of Rule 16 in United States v. [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 10:35 am
In Crawford, William v. [read post]
2 Jan 2007, 2:33 pm
" United States v. [read post]
1 Jan 2007, 1:30 pm
I once asked my predecessor, Chief Justice William H. [read post]
27 Dec 2006, 5:28 am
Davis, a federal district judge in Texas ruled that deep-linking to streaming media is copyright infringement. [read post]
25 Dec 2006, 5:05 am
Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989). [read post]
19 Dec 2006, 6:16 am
Rohrman Citation: 2006 WY 156 Docket Number: 05-290 W.R.A.P. 11 Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, The Honorable William F. [read post]
15 Dec 2006, 1:56 pm
The District Court, however, ruled for Willcox. [read post]
12 Dec 2006, 6:33 am
Williams, 425 U.S. 501, and Holbrook v. [read post]
7 Dec 2006, 10:39 am
Russell (06-5306, 6th Circuit opinion here), testing whether a federal appeals court acting on its own may dismiss as too late an appeal that a District Court had authorized, out of the usual time limits but after the District Court had reopened the appeal time. [read post]
7 Dec 2006, 10:39 am
Russell (06-5306), testing whether a federal appeals court acting on its own may dismiss as too late an appeal that a District Court had authorized, out of the usual time limits but after the District Court had reopened the appeal time. [read post]
5 Dec 2006, 3:15 pm
"Sims' opinion came in the case of Barnett v. [read post]
3 Dec 2006, 12:57 pm
LEXIS 86698 (ND CA, Nov. 30, 2006), relying in particular on a 2002 Ninth Circuit decision, a California federal district court dismissed the claim against the Board of Supervisors, finding that the Supervisors' Resolution has a secular purpose and effect. [read post]
1 Dec 2006, 5:54 am
" Williams v. [read post]
28 Nov 2006, 6:51 am
The district court agreed that at least one part of the patent was invalid because it was obvious. [read post]
Law - "Supreme Court to Hear Arguments Next Week in States' Challenge to 'Preemption' of Regulation"
25 Nov 2006, 9:20 am
The case, Watters v. [read post]
24 Nov 2006, 5:50 am
In Williams v. [read post]
24 Nov 2006, 5:50 am
In Williams v. [read post]
21 Nov 2006, 7:20 am
" (Williams v. [read post]
