Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 6061 - 6080 of 29,826
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Apr 2019, 10:39 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Photo Inc., 624 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2010), abrogated on other grounds by Lexmark. [read post]
1 Apr 2019, 4:08 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  His co-defendant, charged with a  slightly lesser series of crimes went to trial and was acquitted. [read post]
31 Mar 2019, 5:29 am
It would, in effect, amount to a compulsory licence by the court in circumstances where the Defendants have elected not to enforce the RAND undertaking in respect of the '268 patent. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 4:13 am by Edith Roberts
Securities and Exchange Commission that a defendant can be charged with violating federal law barring fraudulent securities schemes if he distributed, but did not make, false statements. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 4:12 am by Edith Roberts
Briefly: At truthdig, Bill Blum writes that “[u]nlike some of his GOP counterparts, [Justice Clarence] Thomas has demonstrated no migration to the ideological center[; i]f anything, he’s become increasingly radical over time. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
Resolving the issue thus turns in part on whether it makes sense to understand the Constitution as extending fewer rights to defendants in state courts than it does to defendants in federal court. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 5:46 pm
  Besides, the defendants were private-sector actors; the Fourteenth Amendment could do no more than empower the federal government to protect against the abuse of rights by the state. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 1:13 pm by Jon Sands
Banuelos, 322 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2003), requires admission of the object by the conspirators. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 10:50 am by Lev Sugarman
.: The Center for Strategic and International Studies will hold an event with the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction John F. [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 6:54 am by Juan C. Antúnez
“[I]f there is direct evidence of a defendant’s actus reus, but the defendant’s intent is proven solely through circumstantial evidence, the special standard of review applies only to the state’s evidence establishing the element of intent. [read post]