Search for: "State v. Graver" Results 41 - 60 of 79
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2017, 3:49 am by Miquel Montañá
As explained in paragraph 42 of this judgment, in paragraph 37 of Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9, Lord Hoffmann explained that the doctrine of equivalents had been developed in the United States. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 3:49 am by Miquel Montañá
As explained in paragraph 42 of this judgment, in paragraph 37 of Kirin-Amgen Inc v Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd [2005] RPC 9, Lord Hoffmann explained that the doctrine of equivalents had been developed in the United States. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 5:11 am by Terry Hart
Google’s own amicus brief in this case states it receives &ldqu [read post]
23 May 2009, 8:54 am
This should cause us all to pause and, as Justice Stevens recently urged in Baze v. [read post]
8 Aug 2016, 6:42 am
However, the present bill defines transgender in binaries of male and female by stating that transgender is someone:(i) who is neither wholly male or wholly female,(ii) a combination of male or female or(iii) neither male nor female.While the folly and shallowness of the legal drafting is evident, it betrays a graver problem with social understanding of gender identity. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 11:58 am by Victoria Clark
Harry Graver summarized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ortiz v. [read post]
26 Apr 2011, 12:12 am by GuestPost
Attacks upon the State itself when they succeed cease to be within the scope of the criminal law. [read post]
Military detention may be legitimate for those captured on an actual battlefield, as our supreme court recognised in Hamdi v Rumsfeld. [read post]
25 May 2015, 11:54 am by Stephen Bilkis
Petitioner's counsel objected, arguing that the remainder of the evidence would establish far graver offenses. [read post]
17 Jan 2019, 6:00 am by Charlie Dunlap
  (See Harvey Graver’s excellent summary of Ortiz found here.) [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 3:33 pm by Lyle Denniston
  This Court has recognized that Section 5′s intrusion on state sovereignty raises serious constitutional questions” (citing the 2009 decision in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. [read post]