Search for: "Griffin v. Rogers"
Results 41 - 60
of 76
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2019, 9:02 pm
Rogers College of Law. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 5:09 am
” At Comparative Patent Remedies, Thomas Cotter discusses the invitation brief filed by the Solicitor General recently in Kimble v. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 5:00 am
In Gelboim v. [read post]
2 Jun 2008, 10:32 am
(Judge Sutton wrote the opinion which was joined by Chief Judge Boggs and Judges Siler, Batchelder, Gibbons, Rogers, Cook, McKeague, and Griffin. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 2:47 am
” The Court also relisted O’Keefe v. [read post]
20 Nov 2012, 4:51 am
In a total of five separate opinions, Chief Judge Batchelder, along with Judges Boggs, Gibbons, Rogers, Sutton, Cook, and Griffin dissented. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 6:43 am
Dec. 27, 2021) (opinion by Rogers, J.). [read post]
15 Sep 2016, 3:58 pm
In D.C. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 1:59 pm
Google and Twitter v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 8:47 pm
In Doe v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 8:47 pm
In Doe v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 8:47 pm
In Doe v. [read post]
17 Jul 2021, 6:30 am
It is no accident that a party like that finds a kindred spirit in the theory of a unitary executive.Both Griffin and Blake Emerson pick up on this theme. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 9:17 am
Robert Hannigan, Former Director, United Kingdom Government Communications HeadquartersMike Rogers, Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency Moderator: David Ignatius, Associate Editor and Columnist, The Washington Post That Was ThenMichael Collins, Deputy Assistant Director, East Asia Mission Center, Central Intelligence AgencyBonnie Glaser, Senior Advisor for Asia; Director, China Power Project, Center for Strategic and International StudiesKenichiro… [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:10 am
Jones v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 5:43 am
” Briefly: At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Malvina Halberstam reviews last week’s oral argument in Zivotofsky v. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 12:31 am
” In an opinion by Judge Cole, joined by Judges Rogers and Griffin, the court held that that “where there is clear evidence that the officers were not engaged in bona fide law enforcement activities, but instead acted with a corrupt, personal, and pecuniary interest, the officers violate the civil rights of those that are stopped, searched, or have their property seized. [read post]
15 Aug 2010, 7:27 pm
Roger Hoan Brady, 2010 Cal. [read post]
10 Oct 2013, 6:47 am
H: U.S. v Doe... [read post]
10 Sep 2015, 8:22 am
Griffith, Deceased v. [read post]
