Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 3961 - 3980
of 7,201
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2013, 9:42 am
The Motorola SEPs at issue in the Microsoft v. [read post]
10 May 2023, 6:02 am
That everyone includes holders of bonds issued before the government hit the debt ceiling, so they would not be injured. [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 11:02 pm
Koh's upcoming FTC v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 3:29 am
By contrast, in Oracle v. [read post]
19 Aug 2023, 10:10 pm
Daimler, and now also Nokia v. [read post]
14 Apr 2022, 10:13 pm
Apple won't be able to avoid that fight.There is another SEP case--that also originates from the Lone Star State, though from another federal district: Continental v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 7:02 am
Holder, among other cases. [read post]
9 Feb 2011, 10:57 pm
Krishna Bajaj (“Krishna Bajaj”), holder of 0.29% of the shares in SIL, intervened in these petitions objecting to the amalgamation. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 7:47 am
Holder, a 2009 immigration case. [read post]
9 May 2024, 10:55 am
The Supreme Court is currently considering the meaning of “accrues” in the context of suing the United States government in Corner Post, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2025, 9:01 pm
Last week, in Maffei v. [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 9:44 am
Diamond v. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 7:46 am
by Natali Helberger For years, consumer representatives, citizen rights groups and academics have lobbied for a better balance between the interests of rights holders and consumers in copyright law. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 1:26 pm
United States Department of Homeland Security will take place. [read post]
27 May 2014, 1:23 pm
About 2.5 million units were sold in the United States, along with an additional 55,000 in Canada. [read post]
6 Aug 2011, 7:25 am
The style of the case is, Antonio Trevino v. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 5:33 am
The April 20, 2011 Court of Appeals opinion in Hutchinson v. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 4:30 am
Franklin v. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 12:55 pm
” State v. [read post]
21 Sep 2014, 8:20 pm
S. 633 (2010) (quoting, for its current relevance, statement in United States v. [read post]
