Search for: "Low v. United States"
Results 581 - 600
of 4,717
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Dec 2011, 1:57 pm
The Sixth Circuit's recent, and short, opinion in United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 5:16 am
United States and Fong Yue Ting v. [read post]
Bowman v Monsanto: the US Supreme Court rules on patent exhaustion and replication of patented seeds
14 May 2013, 2:09 pm
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered its long-awaited judgment in the case of Bowman v Monsanto Co. et Al., unanimously ruling that 'patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission'. [read post]
27 May 2015, 7:52 am
The case was remanded back to the district court to allow Montana’s political contribution limits to be tested under the new and more restrictive standard of Citizens United v. [read post]
1 Sep 2016, 5:35 am
On August 29, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Vasquez v. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 11:33 am
New State Ice Co. v. [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 1:53 pm
Katz, An Analysis of Out-of-Wedlock Childbearing in the United States, 109 Q.J. [read post]
28 Sep 2013, 11:08 am
First, the district saw through the argument that the claimed benzene-APL LNT model was good science because the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies upon it. [read post]
19 Jul 2020, 4:41 pm
The Pirani brothers established a successful business through family owned companies owning and operating hotels in Canada and in the United States. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 7:02 am
Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Christopher v. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 3:49 am
Last summer fifteen United States senators wrote an open letter to Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis to urge the U.S. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 9:42 am
--Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of New YorkOpinion Date: 3/1/10Cite: PrecisionIR, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:18 am
Waxman), and certain Democratic Members of the United States House of Representatives (Paul M. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 10:58 am
”Here is the full opinion of the court: United States v. [read post]
28 Aug 2017, 1:32 pm
”[16] The Decision in Martoma In United States v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 6:43 pm
United States v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
United States, 597 F. [read post]
29 Jul 2018, 8:35 am
Facts: This case (Jones v. [read post]
