Search for: "United States v. Patrick" Results 501 - 520 of 1,101
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Feb 2019, 4:16 am by Edith Roberts
United States Postal Service, which asks whether the federal government can challenge patents under the America Invents Act, comes from Ronald Mann. [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 7:16 am by Amanda Rice
United States (and its consolidated companion, The Boeing Co. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 3:28 am by jonathanturley
Bray, the Chief United States Probation Officer for the District of Delaware, never signed off on the agreement. [read post]
6 May 2016, 5:08 am by Amy Howe
The National Immigration Law Center has an explainer on United States v. [read post]
20 Dec 2019, 4:25 pm by INFORRM
  We have had 460,000 page views this year, more than half from the UK with the United States, India, Australia and Ireland making up the rest of the top five. [read post]
11 Dec 2015, 4:33 am by SHG
United States v Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985). [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 4:30 am by Karen Tani
Howell Williams, Western Connecticut State University, “Workers Built Danbury: Deindustrialized Memory in a Hatting Town”Josh Kluever, Binghamton University (SUNY), “Sorry Waldman, We Just Couldn’t Help It: Socialist State Legislators in New York, 1912-1922”CARCERAL STATE, CARCERAL SOCIETYModerator: Elizabeth Hinton, Yale University Panelists: Max Felker-Kantor, Ball State University, “Arresting the Demand for Drugs: DARE… [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 11:40 pm by Josh Blackman
I've now had a chance to review the oral argument in the Students for Fair Admission v. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 10:11 am
Hungar, Deputy Solicitor General, argued next on behalf of the United States as an amicus in support of petitioner. [read post]
30 Jan 2016, 3:27 pm by Harold O'Grady
The conviction was later upheld in United States v. [read post]
17 Apr 2008, 11:59 am
Patrick Kennedy, the defendant in this case, Kennedy v. [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 4:15 am
Ruling that DiBattista did not have property interest in the position, the Appellate Division concluded that he was not entitled to the protection of Town Law §155.* Civil Service Law §75(1)(b) provides, in pertinent part, that a person holding a position by permanent appointment or employment in the classified service “who was honorably discharged or released under honorable circumstances from the armed forces of the United States having served therein as such… [read post]