Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 3941 - 3960
of 7,201
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Oct 2023, 3:16 pm
Olmstead v. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 8:22 am
One case, Lamone v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 11:16 pm
Lord Hodge concludes that the approach of Lord Briggs provides for more satisfactory protection for the holder of a purpose-limited patent. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 9:47 am
The case cite is John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 1:36 pm
I had not planned to blog about this decision, announced yesterday, in Skelos v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 4:30 am
Pickman v. [read post]
25 Dec 2022, 2:14 am
” The question before the Court boiled down to whether the patent holder had disclosed the invention before the filing date. [read post]
26 Feb 2012, 2:47 pm
Holder, 11-679, the D.C. [read post]
31 May 2023, 6:30 am
In Knox Couty v. [read post]
23 Aug 2013, 12:13 pm
Holder, which ended the requirement that Texas and eight other states with a history of race bias in voting obtain federal approval for any changes in their voting laws or procedures. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 7:56 am
In a recent premises liability case, DeMott v. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 1:10 pm
Holder. [read post]
28 Oct 2012, 11:56 am
(Counsel in black robes preparing for Supreme Court oral argument - with apologies to the IPKat)All eyes will be on the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) on Monday, October 29, 2012 when it will hear oral argument in the immensely important case of Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 7:47 am
We wrote a full blog post on one of the more interesting bills introduced to address the controversial Williams v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 3:17 pm
There was some confusion in both deeds as to who was the title holder and who the beneficiary, but the Bull’s held the title at the Land Registry. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 2:21 pm
We’ve just read Lyman v. [read post]
5 Oct 2020, 9:46 am
At issue in the case, known as Tanzin v. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 8:54 am
Holder (voting rights), and United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 1:45 pm
Here is an excerpt from the introduction: The Supreme Court's unanimous recent decision in Trump v. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 4:23 pm
It is for Member States' courts to determine whether orders are not 'ordinary', i.e. if they are out of proportion to the needs of that Member State's market. [read post]
