Search for: "Bounds v. State"
Results 3761 - 3780
of 9,960
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Mar 2017, 12:37 pm
United States in 2015 (holding that a fish is not a “tangible object” under the federal obstruction of justice statute) and Bond v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 9:19 am
Additional Resources: United Health Services of Georgia, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 2:04 pm
” “If [a defendant] wants the United States to be bound by a decision dismissing the indictment, he should be similarly willing to bear the consequences of a decision upholding it. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 1:15 pm
Unsurprisingly (see my post-argument analysis), that pattern held true in today’s decision in Manuel v. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 10:55 am
At yesterday’s oral argument in Murr v. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 9:05 am
The court declined to be bound by the false advertising reasoning in Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 5:01 am
But sometimes the absence of the Oxford comma can make a difference in meaning.Recently, in O’Connor et al v. [read post]
18 Mar 2017, 3:55 am
Supreme Court clarified the guidelines in 2005 in U.S. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2017, 3:55 am
Supreme Court clarified the guidelines in 2005 in U.S. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 12:55 pm
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to grant an en banc rehearing in Washington v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 10:35 am
And in United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 6:41 am
” Ashcroft v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 6:41 am
” Ashcroft v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 6:41 am
” Ashcroft v. [read post]
17 Mar 2017, 3:44 am
Provide state and federal tax benefits. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 6:24 pm
Granting plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order in Hawaii v. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 11:54 am
In Zamora v. [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 7:33 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 6:04 am
Blum v. [read post]
13 Mar 2017, 3:07 am
equalityThe 5th Board of Appeal’s decision (Case R 1488/2016-5) on the registrability of EUTM No. 14430276 “SMART-SEAL” in Classes 16, 17, 20 (essentially packaging goods) includes, a more detailed than usual, analysis of why EUIPO is not bound by its own previous decisions and perhaps merits commentary.Kluwer Copyright BlogSome IP-blog would be nice too :)* USA: Design Data Corp. v. [read post]
