Search for: "United States v. Karst"
Results 21 - 38
of 38
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Feb 2011, 3:53 pm
Under the so-called “waiver doctrine” of the “law-of-the-case doctrine,” an issue that a party could have raised in an earlier appeal in the case, but that was not raised, is barred from consideration (see United States v. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
Jan. 21, 2011); LeFaivre v. [read post]
17 Jan 2011, 9:27 am
The MMA also amended the patent statute to provide that “courts of the United States shall, to the extent consistent with the Constitution, have subject matter jurisdiction in any action brought . . . under [28 U.S.C. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 3:16 pm
Karst – Earlier today, the U.S. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 10:42 am
Inc. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2010, 11:11 pm
Department of Justice (Solicitor General of the United States) filed its highly anticipated amicus brief in response to the U.S. [read post]
11 Oct 2010, 12:59 pm
§ 292 in Pequignot v. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 10:21 am
” Former Solicitor General of the United States Seth P. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 9:04 pm
Karst – On July 26, 2010, the U.S. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 5:09 pm
Karst – Recently, the U.S. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 12:47 pm
Solvay Pharms, Inc., 588 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009) and United States, ex rel. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 12:42 pm
Supreme Court recently invited the Solicitor General to express the views of the United States on the topic (see our previous post here). [read post]
25 May 2010, 12:51 pm
Department of Justice (Solicitor General of the United States) to weigh in on generic drug preemption. [read post]
20 May 2010, 7:30 am
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in Joblove v. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 7:01 am
Fricke v. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 1:16 pm
At issue is whether the STB and the second respondent, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), complied with their obligations under § 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to ensure that the proposed rail was "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species" before approving the exemption. 16 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Apr 2010, 7:23 pm
United States Department of Transportation, 452 F.3d 362 (5th Cir. 2006)(until final approval was granted on an application, there was “insufficient certainty about the facilities’ future construction and environmental consequences to include them in the cumulative impact calculus. [read post]
6 Dec 2009, 9:11 pm
Click Here Center for Biological Diversity v. [read post]
