Search for: "Thomas v. State" Results 5101 - 5120 of 15,508
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2013, 10:44 am by Kevin
First use of phrase "legalistic argle-bargle" since 1824's Gibbons v. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 10:32 am by admin
“It is one thing for a passerby to observe or even to follow someone during a single journey as he goes to the market or returns home from work,” Ginsburg wrote for the unanimous panel in the case of United States v. [read post]
11 Feb 2019, 12:15 pm by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the Federal Circuits’ Decision for the Helsinn Healthcare v. [read post]
5 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm by Dan Flynn
“In Sackett v EPA, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that EPA had overstepped its authority,” said NCBA Chief Counsel Mary Thomas Hart. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 3:23 am
S. 709 , n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).I note that this does not state that Roe v. [read post]
27 Apr 2007, 9:35 am
The Court heard argument on Monday in United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 3:12 pm by Jon Sands
§ 2244(d)(1), while a Nevada state prisoner loses under equitable tolling.McMonagle v. [read post]
6 Mar 2018, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
In last week’s Supreme Court ruling in Patchak v. [read post]
25 Oct 2010, 7:22 am by James Bickford
The recent telephone call from Virginia Thomas to Anita Hill continues to draw comment. [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 4:03 am by John Day
 For over 20 years, the Barricks had been insured with State Farm through their insurance agent Thomas Jones. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 11:49 am by Erin Napoleon
In United States Patent and Trademark Office v Booking.com BV, the court upheld a Fourth Circuit decision stating that simply adding a top-level domain to a generic term does not render the mark generic in its entirety. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 10:40 am
This was not seen as keeping in line with Thomas' prior stand on federal vs. state preemption. [read post]
” The Federal Circuit also held that the defendants were entitled to sanctions in the form of appellate attorney fees and double costs, against both the complaining individual and his legal counsel (Pirri v. [read post]