Search for: "Light v. United States" Results 41 - 60 of 12,853
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Apr 2024, 2:40 pm by Marty Lederman
 Moreover, at least three important precedents--United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2024, 3:35 am by SHG
It is our solemn duty to diligently guard these rights regardless of the crime charged, the reputation of the accused, or the pressure to convict (see Boyd v United States, 116 US 616, 635 [1886] [“It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon”]). [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 12:25 pm by Lawrence Solum
In the United States, the overturning of the precedent set in 1973 by the abortion decision of Roe v. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 4:15 am by Eileen McDermott
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal on April 19 vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) for a lighting system patent owned by Rotolight Limited. [read post]
25 Apr 2024, 4:15 am by Eileen McDermott
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal on April 19 vacated a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that had denied institution of an inter partes review (IPR) for a lighting system patent owned by Rotolight Limited. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 11:27 am by admin
First, paraquat is closely regulated for agricultural use in the United States. [read post]
20 Apr 2024, 8:18 am by Eugene Volokh
Undoubtedly, history as taught to most in the United States has been from a nationalistic and [E]urocentric perspective. [read post]
19 Apr 2024, 4:51 pm by INFORRM
 In a collective statement, nine civil society organizations, including Access Now and ARTICLE 19, welcome the United States-led UN General Assembly resolution on “safe, secure and trustworthy artificial intelligence systems for sustainable development. [read post]
19 Apr 2024, 12:20 am by Frank Cranmer
Linden J also correctly stated that a religion or belief must meet some modest requirements to be protected under Article 9, citing Williamson and, interestingly, the Strasbourg decision in Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8 for this proposition (para 136). [read post]