Search for: "The United States, Petitioner" Results 4981 - 5000 of 8,962
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2014, 8:39 am
The Petitioners (the survivors) challenged the arbitrary damage caps of 766.118 by appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 5:13 pm by JP Sarmiento
We demonstrated the intrinsic merit of our client’s research in the United States, the national scope of his research, and asserted that our client would serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 12:01 pm by Mary Pat Dwyer
United States 13-632Issue: Whether forensic pathology reports are testimonial for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 8:00 am by John Elwood
Stephens, 13-6646, a one-time relist in which a pro se petitioner (in gaol for having a bit too much o’ the green) argued that he was denied counsel at a “critical stage” of his criminal proceedings in violation of United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2014, 7:06 am
Specifically, the applicable law states that “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent”.1 Similarly, the corresponding rule states that “[a] person may file a petition for Inter Partes Review unless: ... more … [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 7:19 pm
REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINACERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 12–138. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 11:06 am by John Stigi
Mar. 4, 2014), the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 decision reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, held that the whistleblower protection provision in Section 806 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 9:14 am by Ronald Mann
I should add, in the interest of candor, that I worked on the brief and presented oral argument on behalf of the United States in Dewsnup v. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 12:37 pm by John Stigi
Mar. 4, 2014), the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6-3 decision reversing the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, held that the whistleblower protection provision in Section 806 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 8:14 am by Jason Rantanen
United States, 816 F. 2d 647, 656 (1987) (stating the on-sale bar “does not lend itself to formulation into a set of precise requirements”). [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 7:25 am by Amy Howe
United States, in which the Court held that land exchanged with or transferred to the owners of private property under an 1875 law once again became their property when the railroad that ran across the property has been abandoned. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 2:00 pm by Maya Angenot
One of those actions had been commenced by a separate Plaintiff in the United States, and had been settled shortly before the Quebec authorization hearing. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 9:52 am by Anushila Shaw
  As discussed in previous blog posts, the United States Supreme Court agreed to consider Petitioner Halliburton’s argument to modify or overturn the fraud-on-the market presumption that the Court first articulated more than a quarter century ago in Basic  v. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 9:31 am
Commissioner of Correction (Habeas; "On appeal, the petitioner claims that the court erred in denying his petition because his 'constitutional right to the effective assistance of trial counsel, under the [s]ixth and [f]ourteenth [a]mendments to the United States [c]onstitution, was violated.' [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 8:13 am by Jennifer Farer
On March 4, 2014, in a 6-3 decision, the United States Supreme Court decided its first case under Sarbanes-Oxley’s whistleblower protection provision, Section 806. [read post]
9 Mar 2014, 7:52 am
Core Wireless, on the other hand, is a non-United States corporation with one employee that exists solely to license its patent portfolio. [read post]
9 Mar 2014, 7:32 am
(“Barnes & Noble”) seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee to vacate its July 12, 2013 order denying Barnes & Noble’s motion to transfer the case to the District Court for the Northern District of California and remand with instructions to transfer the case. [read post]
8 Mar 2014, 7:19 am by Mark Murakami
Since 1929, however, the State of Washington has allowed only one ferry provider, a private company, to operate on the lake and has prohibited Petitioners James and Clifford Courtney from operating an alternative ferry. [read post]
7 Mar 2014, 11:11 pm by JP Sarmiento
CASE: Marriage to US Citizen Green Card CLIENT: Indian LOCATION: Cleveland, OH Our client came to the United States from India. [read post]