Search for: "The People v. Cross"
Results 3961 - 3980
of 6,171
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2013, 1:17 pm
Circuit, Case No. 11-1302, EME Homer City Generation, L.P v. [read post]
22 Jan 2013, 1:04 pm
Department of Justice v. [read post]
19 Jan 2013, 9:37 am
The Policy, further, states that the focus is on “both people for science and science for people”. [read post]
16 Jan 2013, 9:37 am
Jan. 14, 2013) The court *finally* issued its ruling on the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment in AFP v. [read post]
15 Jan 2013, 3:54 pm
Cross-referencing these factors on the table gives the judge a range of months she should impose. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 7:46 pm
” In 1994, in Dolan v. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 1:13 pm
It seems the judge made repeated references to the crime’s spiritual effrontery: They “didn’t just steal money from people. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 12:37 pm
Anderson 87 Wash.L.Rev. 915 Full Article Inextricably Political: Race, Membership, and Tribal Sovereignty Sarah Krakoff 87 Wash.L.Rev. 1041 Full Article Indigenous Peoples and Epistemic Injustice: Science, Ethics, and Human Rights Rebecca Tsosie 87 Wash.L.Rev. 1133 Full Article Fleeing East from Indian Country: State v. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 6:36 pm
(IIT v. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 2:00 pm
People do strange stuff in their spare time. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 8:51 am
Because a technical background is required for patent prosecution, perhaps “hard IP” implicitly cross-references “hard sciences. [read post]
8 Jan 2013, 6:51 am
(See Self v. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 6:39 am
Not directly tied to this investigation, Google also has invested substantially in its policy and advocacy work in other ways, as we discovered in Oracle v. [read post]
7 Jan 2013, 3:00 am
Here's SCOTUSblog's coverage of the issue:The Justices agreed to hear an appeal by the federal government in United States v. [read post]
3 Jan 2013, 5:44 am
But RFRA requires that the government interest be strong before forcing people to cross the line.On Dec. 31, the 6th Circuit denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. [read post]
29 Dec 2012, 9:31 am
In Petracca v. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 1:57 pm
In the absence of proof that real people were exposed to products that were unsafe or ineffective (instead of just improperly promoted), there is simply no injury, and thus no standing, for any sort of claim by a TPP or other beneficiary for purely economic loss. [read post]
26 Dec 2012, 9:04 am
In Petrocelli v. [read post]
23 Dec 2012, 3:26 pm
In Goodman v. [read post]
