Search for: "State v. Holder"
Results 4461 - 4480
of 8,248
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Nov 2018, 11:16 pm
Lord Hodge concludes that the approach of Lord Briggs provides for more satisfactory protection for the holder of a purpose-limited patent. [read post]
28 Sep 2011, 8:56 am
Gutierrez and Holder v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 4:30 am
Pickman v. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 1:36 pm
I had not planned to blog about this decision, announced yesterday, in Skelos v. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 8:22 am
One case, Lamone v. [read post]
27 Jan 2019, 11:14 am
For instance, in Republic of Iraq v. [read post]
23 Aug 2013, 12:13 pm
Holder, which ended the requirement that Texas and eight other states with a history of race bias in voting obtain federal approval for any changes in their voting laws or procedures. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 4:51 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 7:47 am
We wrote a full blog post on one of the more interesting bills introduced to address the controversial Williams v. [read post]
5 Jul 2015, 9:30 pm
In Kimble v. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 8:37 am
Holder v HLP on the other hand is a disappointing decision from the US Supreme Court. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 5:02 pm
Eli Lilly and Company, et al., Civil Action No. 2:12-62 and Marston v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 3:17 pm
There was some confusion in both deeds as to who was the title holder and who the beneficiary, but the Bull’s held the title at the Land Registry. [read post]
20 Aug 2019, 5:49 am
In Holder v. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 2:21 pm
We’ve just read Lyman v. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 1:10 pm
Holder. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 7:56 am
In a recent premises liability case, DeMott v. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 8:20 am
[iv] Oral v. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 8:54 am
Holder (voting rights), and United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2012, 11:56 am
(Counsel in black robes preparing for Supreme Court oral argument - with apologies to the IPKat)All eyes will be on the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) on Monday, October 29, 2012 when it will hear oral argument in the immensely important case of Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
