Search for: "Wood v. United States (two Cases)" Results 41 - 60 of 743
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Apr 2013, 9:35 am by WIMS
As of 2008, there were 36 million utility-owned wood poles in service across the United States that have been treated with PCP. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 12:38 pm by WIMS
The Appeals Court explains the background of the case as follows: On the afternoon of September 6, 2004, boys stole two bottles of mercury from an abandoned building, took this hazardous substance to a playground near the Rosemount Woods mobile home park, and released it while playing. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 8:11 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Wood, Herron , on the subject on legal malpractice cases in the patent area [PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC denied ], Judge O’MALLEY authored a lengthy dissent, arguing against federal jurisdiction.From the dissent, giving background on the case:The gist of Byrne’s malpractice case is that defendants negligently failed to secure broader patent protection for his invention from the United States Patent and Trademark Office… [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 5:21 am by Amy Howe
Briefly: In The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse discusses last week’s grant in the two cell phone privacy cases, United States v. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 6:51 am by Erin Miller
 At the Conglomerate, Tamara Piety discusses the likely impact of Citizens United on a series of civil RICO cases filed by the United States against tobacco companies; petitions for certiorari in the case are currently before the Court. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 4:09 pm by Tom Goldstein
Omar (with the United States as the petitioner) and No. 66-1666, Munaf v. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 3:36 pm by Marty Lederman
  Indeed, it’s not even clear that that is a federal question; it would appear to turn, instead, on matters of state corporation law--here, the laws of Pennsylvania (Conestoga Wood) and, perhaps, of Oklahoma (Hobby Lobby). 6. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 6:59 am by Rich McHugh
Two cases actually are involved in this opinion, including Sebelius v. [read post]