Search for: "United States v. Holder"
Results 4001 - 4020
of 4,233
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2009, 2:03 am
The 1953 case in which the Supreme Court established it, United States v. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 12:38 am
The Supreme Court’s 2006 opinion in eBay v. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 12:38 am
The Supreme Court’s 2006 opinion in eBay v. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 12:38 am
The Supreme Court’s 2006 opinion in eBay v. [read post]
8 Feb 2009, 5:28 am
Bank of America, the largest bank in the United States, has agreed to settle a Nationwide Class Action related to its overdraft and non-sufficient fund fee practices. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 12:41 pm
—————– Violators would forfeit their 180-day exclusivity period: Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(V)) is amended by inserting `section 29 of the Clayton Act or’ after `that the agreement has violated’. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 1:19 pm
In Bell v. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 4:30 am
Katz v. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 9:00 am
Sept. 17, 2008), the United States District Court of Colorado held the presumptive lead plaintiff adequate to represent the class because its “contracts for difference” (“CFD) were “securities” under the Securities Exchange Act. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 1:58 am
Like many of these cases, the Deutsche Alt-A case was originally filed in state court, and removed by defendants to federal court. [read post]
7 Jan 2009, 5:39 am
Lindor's legal defense in UMG v. [read post]
2 Jan 2009, 4:57 am
Relationship to United States Citizens3. [read post]
30 Dec 2008, 6:51 pm
A patent holder should know what he owns, and the public should know what he does not. [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 1:43 pm
Roosevelt UFSD; grants Chapter Signed Date Effective Date 9 01/28/2008 01/28/2008 Last Act: 01/28/08 SIGNED CHAP.9 10 S6773 ROBACH -- Relates to compensation benefits and other terms and conditions of employment of certain state officers state officers and employees; repealer;appropriation BLURB : Civ Serv. comp benefits Chapter Signed Date Effective Date 10 01/28/2008 provided that the applicable effective date for Parts A through B shall be as specifically set forth… [read post]
22 Dec 2008, 12:07 pm
State of Ohio, No.7-3808 (6th Cir. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 12:14 pm
” Morgenstern v. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 11:27 am
Discussing the significance of the US ruling in Qualcomm Inc v Broadcom Corp at the beginning of this month it reads, in relevant part: "Patents relevant to the use of a standard may be unenforceable if the patent holder withheld information during the standards development process, the Appeals Court in the United States (the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) concluded recently.The case related to the H.264 Standard for video compression developed… [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 5:00 am
United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998). [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 11:44 pm
., et al. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2008, 1:10 pm
See United States v. [read post]
