Search for: "DP v. State"
Results 21 - 40
of 375
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2022, 7:25 am
It is time to correct those gravely wrong decisions and end racial profiling for the Texas DPS, the Border Patrol, and all police in the United States. [read post]
31 Jul 2022, 1:31 pm
DP America Inc. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 12:14 am
An internet disclosure may be regarded as part of the state of the art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 11:18 pm
Texas DPS (state sovereign immunity), and Biden v. [read post]
5 Jul 2022, 11:08 am
DPS U.S. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:33 pm
For example, consider the recent case of O.M. v. [read post]
28 May 2022, 2:25 pm
First, it’s ridiculous to call the Castle Rock v. [read post]
24 Feb 2022, 4:01 am
Recent examples include the State of Georgia’s litigation to stop Carl Malamud and Public.Resource.Org from publishing the Official Code of Georgia Annotated in the United States (Georgia et al. v. [read post]
1 Feb 2022, 12:32 am
The documents filed by the parties in the appeal proceedings are numbered as follows:A1 Decision Edwards Lifesciences AG v. [read post]
3 Jan 2022, 4:05 am
In DP (a pseudonym) v. [read post]
31 Dec 2021, 5:00 am
California v. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 10:00 am
Another, indirect, pathway focuses on the support of key stakeholders to whom human rights related work has been given (by the state) or taken (in the absence of delegation). [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 2:08 pm
See State v. [read post]
31 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
In United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 9:04 pm
Because it interferes with the United States' "broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration," Arizona v. [read post]
29 Jul 2021, 7:47 pm
See Arizona v. [read post]
29 May 2021, 5:25 pm
” Ganung v. [read post]
20 May 2021, 12:07 pm
Interesting developments in G 1/21! [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:57 am
The Board also set forth (point 5.4) that, on the basis of the minutes of the oral proceedings in examination, it was at least implicit during the oral proceedings, and should have been known to the applicant, that both D1 and D2 were considered as "closest prior art".V. [read post]
