Search for: "Mitchell v. United States"
Results 501 - 520
of 1,001
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jan 2015, 9:33 am
As Richard Nixon’s HUD secretary and attorney general, they brought the case that persuaded the Eighth Circuit: United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2014, 4:12 pm
That application was dismissed by Judge Mitchell in March 2014. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 6:45 am
In Maryland, hotel operators convinced the state legislature to pass laws which apply to HMAs that attempt to circumvent the above judicial decisions. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 7:53 am
” Mitchell v. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 5:52 am
(Portal-to-Portal Act), according to the United States Supreme Court, which unanimously decided Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2014, 10:00 am
United States Marshals Service, 2014 U.S. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 12:13 pm
In Shelby County v. [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 6:32 pm
United States Right to Enter Statutes – taking? [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 11:19 am
Maciej Lipinski A recent ruling in the United States has repercussions for a woman seeking refugee status in Canada. [read post]
17 Nov 2014, 5:26 pm
For that purpose we consider the legal position of the subsidiary units of government in the United States and their relationship to federal power. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 8:01 am
United States, 320 U.S. 1, 60–61 (1943) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting in part) (‘‘it is an old observation that the training of Anglo–American judges ill fits them to discharge the duties cast upon them by patent legislation’’); Parke–Davis & Co. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 4:06 pm
As already mentioned, on 31 October 2014, Warby J handed down judgment following the PTR in Mitchell v News Group ([2014] EWHC 3590 (QB)) There was also an assessment of damages in the case of Johnson v Steele. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 1:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 3:41 pm
Nor had the Supreme Court yet ruled in United State v. [read post]
13 Oct 2014, 2:03 pm
’s explanation for the coding of Wisconsin v. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 9:35 am
In support of that assertion, the State cites United States v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 9:12 am
”Id. at 1141-42 (various citations omitted).Courts in other states following this general approach are: Haygood v. [read post]
18 Sep 2014, 11:17 am
The allegations, as discussed in United States ex rel. [read post]
11 Sep 2014, 5:00 am
District Courts and in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including numerous IPRs currently pending before the PTAB. [read post]
9 Sep 2014, 5:00 am
District Courts and in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including numerous IPRs currently pending before the PTAB. [read post]
