Search for: "Matter of Cert. of a Question of Law"
Results 361 - 380
of 1,626
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2020, 6:54 am
" App. to Pet. for Cert. 10. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 1:15 pm
I see some different issues.First things first: the case isn't important for the legal questions it raises and it isn't going to generate any new law. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 6:33 am
Only about 1 in 100 cert petitions succeeds. [read post]
14 Oct 2007, 7:57 am
That's a less likely explanation, in our view, but we won't rule it out.So our answer to the first question -- "Why did the Supreme Court grant cert in Kent? [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 1:09 pm
Watson, 22-412Issue: Whether any amendment to a law originally adopted for an impermissible racially discriminatory purpose, no matter how minor the amendment and no matter the historical context, cleanses the law of its racist origins for 14th Amendment purposes unless the party challenging the law can prove that the amendment itself was motivated by racial discrimination. [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 9:32 pm
Petitioner's case is not final as a matter of law. [read post]
18 Dec 2019, 9:12 am
But Judge Hand changed his mind and now voted to reverse, believing the matter to be a question of fact, not law, and that Gardella should be given an opportunity to prove his case. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 10:49 am
After cert was granted, a group of tax law professors, headed by Michael Graetz, filed an amicus brief in support of the government's position. [read post]
9 Dec 2021, 10:00 am
Time will tell whether the Supreme Court clarifies patent-eligibility law by granting cert to consider Yu and Zhang’s case or through another case. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:45 am
Department of Justice) addressed the question of "Why Patent Law’s Right to Exclude Is Pro-competitive". [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 5:30 am
Still, this rule raises more questions than it answers—as we have seen this summer. [read post]
30 Nov 2007, 1:31 am
But if the Supreme Court did accept cert, it would probably not hear the case until after the 2008 election. [read post]
21 May 2012, 8:58 am
WildTangent’s question, “Whether, or in what circumstances, a patent’s general and indeterminate references to ‘over the Internet’ or at ‘an Internet website’ are sufficient to transform an unpatentable abstract idea into a patentable process for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 101,” goes back to the Federal Circuit for reconsideration in light of a unanimous Supreme Court opinion which said, “A patent, for example, could not simply recite a law of nature and then add… [read post]
21 May 2012, 8:58 am
The Federal Circuit reversed, and WildTangent threw a Hail Mary cert. petition to the Supreme Court. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 11:50 am
That is not a partisan question, though antitrust law often is. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 1:19 pm
The court excused TCL’s failure to raise Section 101 in its motions for judgment as a matter of law for two reasons. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 8:59 am
But an interesting enough substantive question about patent law could nonetheless make its way to the U.S. [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 5:00 am
The cert question in the case is how much of a conversation needs to be law-related for the privilege to apply, but there's a threshold question about what counts as a law-related discussion in the first place. [read post]
7 Feb 2010, 8:16 am
If the Solicitor General is advising the Court that the federal agency that lost below is not seeking review that tends to end the matter. [read post]
17 Dec 2021, 1:54 pm
Gear also raises a question for the justices as to the opportunity that appellate courts must give a defendant to make an evidentiary proffer to show plain error. [read post]
