Search for: "Marks v. United States Department of Justice"
Results 41 - 60
of 1,593
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Apr 2017, 7:04 pm
United States, No. 16-309. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 11:27 am
”) State of Ohio v. [read post]
21 Sep 2017, 9:38 am
”) State of Ohio v. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 1:00 pm
It was Ratified by the President of the United States on June 8, 1911. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 11:34 am
In Harris v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 11:56 am
Any private entity that believes someone is using an expired or invalid patent can file a criminal lawsuit in the name of the United States, without getting approval from or even notifying the Department of Justice. [read post]
25 May 2023, 1:33 pm
United States. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 6:32 am
United States, No. 16-5454, Justice Thomas issued a dissent from the denial of certiorari. [read post]
4 Mar 2007, 5:10 am
See also United States v. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 7:30 pm
United States, vacated the decision of the Seventh Circuit, and remanded the case “for further consideration in light of the confession of error by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States. [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 7:54 am
United States and Ortiz v. [read post]
29 Apr 2015, 12:38 pm
United States v. [read post]
19 May 2014, 9:01 pm
United States Department of Justice Judicial Watch’s request was filed under FOIA, a federal law that took effect in 1967. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 11:47 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Dec 2022, 5:20 am
No. 93-854, 1 (May 16, 1974) (report accompanying S. 2543) (Comm. on the Judiciary).[2] This is, of course, typified by Justice Brandeis’ famous aphorism describing sunlight as the best disinfectant.[3] See, e.g., Brigham Daniels, Mark Buntaine, Tanner Bangerter, Testing Transparency, 114 NW. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 3:35 am
United States. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 7:50 am
This notice is not expedient enough to provide the United States with sufficient time to protect its interests, and is not directed to the Department of Justice -- the agency responsible for representing the United States’ interests in a false marking suit. . . . [read post]
14 Nov 2022, 9:01 pm
Trump v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 7:48 am
In Railway Employees Department v. [read post]
12 Jan 2024, 7:31 am
United States, a case with potentially broad implications for the income tax system. [read post]
