Search for: "Doe v. Doe" Results 5121 - 5140 of 137,379
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Apr 2014, 12:38 am by Florian Mueller
And I can see that those who would like Apple to "destroy" (as Steve Jobs put it) Android in court (for which Apple's own customers would also pay the price) increasingly realize that Apple does not appear to be, if the results of more than four years of litigation are any indication, a nuclear world power.I did want to add a few general thoughts. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 10:32 am by Dennis Crouch
Cir. 2019) (discussing the court’s prior reversal of a jury DOE verdict) Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2010, 5:04 pm by Sven Peterson
Supreme Court heard oral argument on April 28, 2010 in the case of Doe v. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 7:55 am by Jason Byrne
On March 23, 2010, the Court of Appeals published its earlier January opinion in Doe v. [read post]
1 Apr 2018, 7:00 pm by Stephen Schultze
That is the lesson of the unanimous Supreme Court case Skinner v. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 3:17 am
Agency’s enforcing its rule prohibiting misconduct does not require that it show “employee’s intent”Matter of Daveiga v City of New York, 57 AD3d 451The New York City Housing Authority dismissed Kymel Daveiga from his position as Supervisor of Grounds after he was found to have violated the Authority’s policy prohibiting employees from "commit[ting] any . . . violation of the law either on or off duty or on or off the work site implicating their… [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 6:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Supreme Court’s Majority Decision in Sveen v Melin The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the retroactive application of Minnesota’s statute does not violate the Contracts Clause. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 10:51 pm
The Conglomerate is hosting an interesting blog symposium about Jones v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 1:15 pm by Gene Quinn
It has become difficult to understand why the Federal Circuit does what it does in any number of rulings, but its decisions relating to patent eligibility have set patent law back several generations, turned precedent on its head, ignored the Patent Act passed by Congress, and unnecessarily and inexplicably expanded upon bad Supreme Court precedent. [read post]