Search for: "Bui v. State" Results 5741 - 5760 of 8,940
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Mar 2011, 3:02 pm
Defendants thus appeared to be nothing more than sellers of fungible goods in a complex series of transactions that were directed by foreign gangs.The decision is European Community v. [read post]
15 Sep 2007, 10:26 am
Then, after a mounting fire storm of critical commentary, the Chancellor Michael V. [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 4:33 pm by Guest Author
DeBlanc This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 11:51 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Schutz Container Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2008, 7:26 pm
State-law injury issues not addressed.Wood v. [read post]
25 Aug 2014, 3:31 am by Peter Mahler
Whelan, in Flax v Shirian, 2014 NY Slip Op 51229(U) [Sup Ct, Suffolk County Aug. 15, 2014], the court mercifully decreed death for a hopelessly dysfunctional, multi-member real estate holding company identified by one side as 27th Street Associates, LLC, by the other side as 27th Street, LLC, and in the property deeds and records of the New York Department of State, as 27 Street LLC. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 11:34 pm by Florian Mueller
With Qualcomm's web of contracts (where the contract manufacturers buy the chips and pay the patent royalties, but Apple offsets those patent royalties and Qualcomm then promised go give Apple some de facto rebates contingent upon certain types of behavior) being characterized by cross-references and interdependencies as became clear at the FTC trial, the court takes a holistic and business-minded approach.The recent surprise motion was then denied because Qualcomm's… [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 5:03 am by Russ Bensing
  Let’s start with US v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 9:53 am by Florian Mueller
A week ago the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its opinion in a snowplow patent case, Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. [read post]
30 May 2011, 5:02 am by Susan Brenner
The district court judge didn’t buy either theory: To state a plausible claim under § 1030, one must be guilty of gaining `unauthorized access’ or `exceeding authorized access’ to a protected computer system. [read post]