Search for: "DOE DEFENDANT"
Results 5901 - 5920
of 112,775
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 May 2021, 8:26 am
Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004), holding that a DUI is not a § 16(b) “crime of violence” and thus not an “aggravated felony”) – does not suffice to dismiss a reentry indictment. [read post]
22 Sep 2016, 7:12 am
"[The expert's] testimony on willfulness is not helpful to the jury, as it does not concern a matter beyond the understanding of the average person. [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 2:05 pm
The definition of “patronize” does not support a mere clicking. [read post]
1 Mar 2013, 2:22 pm
An unlawful killing that does not meet these three criteria is murder in the 2nd degree. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 8:52 am
The Court Support Services Division, appearing as amicus curiae, similarly argues that due process does not require that counsel be permitted to attend the child custody evaluation. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 12:15 pm
The classification of a wobbler conduct as a misdemeanor does not operate retroactively.The decision is here:http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/04/09/18-10016.pdf [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 4:05 am
The record supports a restriction on defendant’s occupying the same space as the victim at any given time, but it likely does not support banning defendant from his family’s church absent the victim’s presence there. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 2:48 pm
The defendant's first name is "Jhyy. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 7:10 am
§ 315(a) does not bar Defendants from seeking inter partes review before the PTAB because Defendants did not file a 'civil action' by filing a Paragraph IV Certification. . . . [read post]
9 Apr 2013, 8:30 am
He does not have to show both. [read post]
11 Dec 2019, 8:59 pm
At the circuit level, the Defendant has counsel and may enter a guilty plea on the first appearance, but rarely does that happen. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 11:04 am
Urrutia-Contreras, No. 14-50113 (Gettleman, DJ, with Gould and Kleinfeld) --- The government gets to weigh in on a revocation sentence, just like it does at the initial sentencing hearing. [read post]
5 Jan 2017, 7:06 am
The Court does not find [defendant's] first argument to be well-taken, principally because of the change in the parties’ relative bargaining positions following the jury verdict. . . . [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 6:48 am
[Plaintiff] does not cite any authority demonstrating that [defendant] was required to solicit the interpretation of the patent's inventor before initiating a patent infringement claim, nor is this Court willing to impose such a stringent requirement on patent holders. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 7:00 am
[A] strategic decision to present different evidence in federal court than in an administrative court does not entitle a party to reconsideration simply because the administrative court later initiated review based on alleged facts and argument — including argument explicitly disclaimed before this Court. [read post]
29 Sep 2015, 6:36 am
The Court does not disagree that the patented inventions, at some level, contain an implementation of the abstract idea of 'packaging and transmitting information.' However, every invention can be reduced to some form of an abstract idea. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 7:23 am
[Defendant's] argument that the challenged statements are not 'reservations' or 'disclaimers,' but instead, reflect 'the fact that the claim elements are also found elsewhere,' does not address the problem with the experts’ lack of analysis. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 5:24 pm
The First Step Act does not strip the court of the ability to consider the information in its sentencing discretion. [read post]
17 May 2016, 6:51 am
The use of a microprocessor, moreover, to calculate 'the amount of time left under battery power,' does not itself render the [patent] an abstract idea, particularly where [defendant] points to no evidence that the human mind could perform such calculation entirely on its own. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 6:49 am
[Defendant] does not take issue with the methodology underlying each of [the expert's] two market reconstructions and there is no reason not to consider each of the reconstructions, on its own, sufficiently reliable to be helpful to the trier of fact. . . . [read post]
