Search for: "United States v. Minnesota" Results 621 - 640 of 1,810
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2017, 8:00 am by Sevens Legal
Franken took to the Senate floor to make his announcement, saying, “I am announcing that in the coming weeks I will be resigning as a member of the United States Senate. [read post]
3 Sep 2020, 9:08 am by Eugene Volokh
In the absence of controlling United States Supreme Court authority, we are bound by the Oregon Supreme Court, not the Ninth Circuit. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 7:16 am by J. Gordon Hylton
Suppose President Obama wins all of the electoral votes from (1) all of the Northeastern states except New Hampshire; (2) Maryland, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Virginia; (3) all of the states that border on the Pacific Ocean except Alaska; and (4) New Mexico, Colorado, Minnesota, Illinois, and Michigan. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 3:03 pm by Nikki Siesel
To resolve this issue, one party must demonstrate they used the mark in commerce before the other party, thereby entitling that party to register the trademark at the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO). [read post]
26 Aug 2010, 5:30 am
  The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota agreed with the plaintiffs, declined to exercise jurisdiction, and remanded the case to state court. [read post]
12 Aug 2009, 12:19 pm
Minnesota and Oregon provide for the right to counsel prior to chemical testing in their respective State Constitutions as well. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 11:39 am by Christopher J. Walker
The casebook includes sufficient material to support an advanced administrative law course taught to students with previous exposure to the regulatory state.The new edition incorporates new developments through the Supreme Court’s 2021-22 term, including excerpts from United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 12:55 pm by Richard Bortnick
On July 23, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued an important decision in Eyeblaster, Inc. v. [read post]