Search for: "US v. Simmons" Results 361 - 380 of 746
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Nov 2009, 11:15 am
U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 24, 2009 US v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 5:50 am
He much preferred the use of party experts on each side giving the Court the opportunity to hear, question and balance the experts’ views.A further topic for discussion was disclosure requests and whether courts should allow for document production on request. [read post]
16 Apr 2023, 5:53 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
  In Astellas v Teva/Sandoz, Anna Edwards-Stuart took to her feet during trial, as well as Sarah Love for Apple in IDG v Lenovo. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 10:49 am by Amy Howe
Arizona, the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision holding that the court’s 1994 ruling in Simmons v. [read post]
20 Feb 2007, 7:03 am
Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber (05-381). [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 12:21 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
Bernstein of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted an unopposed motion to amend a Complaint filed by a plaintiff in the case of Simmons v. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 6:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Bernstein of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas granted an unopposed motion to amend a Complaint filed by a plaintiff in the case of Simmons v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 9:08 am by John Elwood
Let’s see what the younger, funnier versions of us had to say about this case way back in 2015’s post: Hawkins v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 9:43 am
Court of Appeal justices Janet Simmons, Eleanore Cronk, and Jean MacFarland agreed. [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 8:23 am by Jessica Smith
Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 416-21 (2007) (Crawford is not a watershed rule of criminal procedure); Schriro, 542 U.S. at 356-58 (same as to Ring rule); Beard, 542 U.S. at 418-20 (same as to Mills rule); O’Dell, 521 U.S. at 167 (same as to Simmons rule); Lambrix v. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 8:24 pm
Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (allowing race to be one of several factors to be considered as criteria in college admission, but prohibiting the use of specific quotas). [8] See, e.g., Gratz v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 2:10 am
MARQUES's Class 46 weblog has finally published the full programme and list of speakers for its seminar, "Future Plans: next steps for trade marks in Europe", which will be held at the London offices of law firm Simmons & Simmons LLP on Tuesday 5 April (the launch of this seminar featured on this weblog last week). [read post]
13 Feb 2014, 3:06 pm
Aside from its inherent significance, Belgium’s move requires us to revisit Roper v. [read post]