Search for: "U.S. v. Carter" Results 581 - 600 of 1,037
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Apr 2014, 1:45 am
 It was the year of Williams & Wilkins v U.S. relating to the whether the photocopying machine would put the publishing industry out of business. [read post]
13 Jan 2020, 1:24 pm by Amy Howe
The justices asked the U.S. solicitor general for the views of the federal government in two cases, Nestle v. [read post]
23 May 2007, 3:37 am
Carter, 378 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 2004) (holding officers reasonably understood they had consent to enter where defendant, after being asked if they could enter, moved away from the door and backed up), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1155 (2005); United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 10:08 am by Hakemi
  At paragraph 7 of its reasons in Lawson v. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 6:30 am
Posner, Cooley LLP, on Monday, December 19, 2022 Tags: board diversity, California, Crest v. [read post]
23 Dec 2022, 6:30 am
Posner, Cooley LLP, on Monday, December 19, 2022 Tags: board diversity, California, Crest v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
United States, Rule 10b-5, SEC enforcement, Securities fraud, United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
United States, Rule 10b-5, SEC enforcement, Securities fraud, United States v. [read post]
8 Sep 2018, 8:02 am by William Ford
Bobby Chesney and Steve Vladeck dissected the Supreme Court’s landmark 1952 decision in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 5:22 am by SHG
To my mind, the case is really a follow-up to Atwater v. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 10:51 am by Paul A. Prados
As the case was filed before commencement of the special session it should have been dismissed if filed in Federal Court just like Carter v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 5:16 pm by Rebecca Shafer, J.D.
Fisher, Collins & Carter, Case No. 10-cv-2453, filed in the U.S. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 10:17 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Panel 2—U.S. and EU Perspectives on Trademark and Design Law in the Next Decade Annette Kur, Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law; Associate Professor, Stockholm University Two regimes coexisting at the community level and harmonized national law; both regimes are interlinked in terms of prior rights in one creating barriers to rights in another. [read post]