Search for: "Martin, C. v. State of Indiana"
Results 21 - 40
of 62
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
26 Oct 2014, 8:23 pm
Consideration of Hamdi v. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 9:01 pm
On Wednesday, Federal District Judge Martin Feldman upheld the Louisiana ban in Robicheaux v. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm
This is the approach labeled “C” above, and appears to be the Lexis model. [read post]
20 Nov 2013, 7:41 pm
” in the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies . [read post]
14 Nov 2013, 1:04 pm
Simon.Stahl, Philip Michael.Chicago, Illinois : ABA Section of Family Law, [2013]KF547 .S733 2013 Family Law According to our hearts : Rhinelander v. [read post]
20 Jul 2013, 10:39 am
The papers from that conference will be published by the Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 7:43 am
Hughes v. [read post]
22 Nov 2012, 12:27 am
Darr, Indiana Univ, Kokomo, and Harry C. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 6:16 am
Indiana Hoosiers by 23.5 Indiana 31-17 Indiana 27-10 Michigan v. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 1:44 pm
Martin, 131 S. [read post]
6 Jul 2011, 8:50 am
” State v. [read post]
26 Jun 2011, 8:44 pm
” Anthony C. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 3:18 pm
Rather, “[c]ourts must decide the applicability of comment k case-by-case, and only after taking evidence related to the various factors. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 5:34 pm
Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
App. 2007) (adopting Restatement Third §2(c) regarding warnings; “[a]bsent controlling Arizona law to the contrary, we generally follow the Restatement”); Southwest Pet Products, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:08 am
John C. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 2:39 pm
A state court said no. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 5:43 am
See Reynolds v. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
(Inventive Step) (Patent Docs) US Patents Applying Supreme Court precedent: Carlsbad Technology v HIF Bio (Patently-O) (Hal Wegner) USPTO not laying off employees (IP Watchdog) USPTO maintenance fees (Patently-O) Merchants warranty of non-infringement (Patently-O) PLI patent bar review tour (IP Watchdog) Provisional patent applications: waiting to file non-provisionals (Patently-O) 35 USC § 315(C) and its uncodified cousin – inter partes re-examination… [read post]
