Search for: "Goldstein v Held"
Results 521 - 540
of 886
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Apr 2014, 9:24 am
Hammond v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 5:35 am
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in Sepulvado v. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 4:45 am
[Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioner in Sepulvado v. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 7:38 pm
Sepulvado v. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 7:25 am
Brandt Revocable Trust v. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 1:06 pm
Plain English summary: The Court’s decision in BG Group plc v. [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 5:52 am
In Law v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 8:40 pm
Long v. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 9:19 am
In the recently decided Chadbourne & Parke v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 6:21 am
In United States v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 11:00 am
Having held that a premises rule is workable in [Bailey v. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 5:53 am
[Disclosure: Tom Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell, P.C., the publisher of this blog, argued Walden on behalf of the respondents; the firm's Kevin Russell was among the counsel to the petitioner in Fernandez.] [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 7:36 pm
Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 10:18 am
In another case, Plumhoff v. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 12:00 pm
Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case. [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 8:42 am
On the one hand, states can expand federal IP rights beyond the scope allowed by federal law – for instance, by sanctioning contract rules that restrict buyers' use of copyrighted materials (held enforceable in ProCD v. [read post]
31 Jan 2014, 4:38 am
Bauman, in which the Court held that the car company cannot be sued for injuries allegedly caused by the actions of an Argentinian subsidiary that took place entirely outside the country. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 5:28 am
Sam Bagenstos breaks down the decision in Sandifer v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 7:02 pm
The petition of the day is: DiCristina v. [read post]
