Search for: "Land v. United States" Results 3841 - 3860 of 6,678
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Sep 2019, 12:16 pm by Florian Mueller
The United States Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has always been viewed as being more sympathetic to patent holders than to alleged infringers--but not in every single aspect of patent law. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 9:53 am by Claire Juneau
 In United States v. 43.42 Acres of Land, the court examined ownership of a subsurface cavern created by the removal of salt. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 5:00 am by Kirk Jenkins
The Court noted that Illinois follows the approach set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Landgraf v. [read post]
16 Mar 2010, 6:42 pm by Georgetown Law Journal
Dean Kevin Johnson, University of California Davis School of Law, How Racial Profiling in America Became the Law of the Land: United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 2:41 am by Adam Wagner
As the judge in this case pointed out, age “certainly matters to young people who seek refuge in this country, often in a state of confusion, and often traumatised by the events that have caused them to flee their own land and the tortuous journey they have made from their land to this”. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 3:01 pm
Further, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that "state laws that conflict with federal law are 'without effect.' " Altria Group, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 8:52 pm by Ilya Somin
Article VI of the Constitution clearly states that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 2:40 pm by Matt Gluck
China would be the third country to successfully land a rover on Mars, joining Russia and the United States. [read post]
8 Mar 2008, 11:31 pm
    That was the first issue in United States v. 1.04 Acres of Land, No. [read post]
12 Aug 2012, 4:00 pm by Steve Vladeck
” But putting that aside, I think the far more significant point for present purposes is how inconsistent the Fourth Circuit’s analysis of Brehm’s contacts is with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces’ analysis in United States v. [read post]