Search for: "Does v. United States of America"
Results 4221 - 4240
of 4,684
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Sep 2009, 5:09 am
United States, 986 F. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 8:57 am
Opinion below (6th Circuit) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition Petitioner's reply Docket: 08-1341 Title: United States v. [read post]
20 Sep 2009, 4:06 pm
V. [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 3:35 pm
[Legal Blog Watch] * Does America need more Congresspeople? [read post]
18 Sep 2009, 8:26 am
The Court said that the processing of a contract grievance was governed by the provision in the collective bargaining agreement and if the agreement does not give unit members the right to demand arbitration, only the union had the right to seek to arbitrate the matter. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 1:36 pm
Mikula v. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 12:41 pm
The only related Congressional Act -- the Federal Tort Claims Act -- expressly says it "does not include any contractor with the United States. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 5:51 am
(IPKat) United States US General Third IP cross-retaliation strike against USA at WTO (Excess Copyright) World Economic Forum survey: US 18th in global IP protection (Intellectual Property Watch) Funds for US State Department global IP enforcement training (Intellectual Property Watch) Changes in USPTO senior management (Patent Docs) US Patents PatentFreedom to offer subscription-based reexam service to attack NPE patents (Peter Zura's 271 Patent… [read post]
7 Sep 2009, 6:35 pm
She has registered the phrase as a trademark with the United States Patent & Trademark Office. [read post]
6 Sep 2009, 11:46 pm
The Supreme Court explained the reason underlying the indefiniteness doctrine 60 years ago in United Carbon Co. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2009, 3:38 am
In State v. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 9:38 pm
In United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 848 v. [read post]
28 Aug 2009, 3:38 pm
" - Winston Churchill (United States Constitution) © 2006-2009 Sex Offender Issues , All Rights Reserved [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 10:55 am
In Dreiling v. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 7:05 am
The case is Citizens United v. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 6:29 am
For example, in United States v. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 6:05 am
United States of America (C.D.Cal. [read post]
22 Aug 2009, 7:41 am
Furthermore, in Lawrence v. [read post]
19 Aug 2009, 1:42 pm
Unfortunately, it often does. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 11:33 am
” For these reasons, the United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing, and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality. [read post]
