Search for: "State v. Files"
Results 6381 - 6400
of 90,531
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Oct 2016, 4:25 am
Chris Dunn Kelly v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 12:03 pm
In Bretherick v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 3:21 pm
In IP Power Holdings Ltd. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2017, 3:02 am
Kraft Foods, cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas fell from 36% of all patent filings to 21% [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal] “Quick trials, big verdicts favoring consumers, and a state law that allows nonresidents to easily join mass litigations made St. [read post]
17 May 2011, 3:38 pm
CERT v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 12:42 pm
The United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Indiana held two bench trials, one on infringementand one on invalidity. [read post]
26 Nov 2013, 3:00 am
In Gilbert v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 11:28 am
In Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 773 Pension Fund v. [read post]
23 Mar 2019, 7:53 pm
Last month, the SCOTUS ruled in Timbs v Indiana that a state's fine or forfeiture scheme may be excessive and thus unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution. [read post]
5 Oct 2007, 11:33 am
In Arista v. [read post]
1 Feb 2015, 10:35 am
Timothy Jost On January 28, 2015, thirty amicus briefs were filed in the Supreme Court supporting the validity of the Internal Revenue Service rule in King v. [read post]
18 May 2010, 4:57 pm
Attorney’s Office in Puerto Rico filed suit in USA v. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 4:07 pm
SCOTUSblog has listed in Tuck-It-Away, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Sep 2024, 11:52 pm
A recent Louisiana Court of Appeal decision, Wells v. [read post]
10 Aug 2010, 8:19 am
Now it is PUCL's turn to reply to those counter-affidavits filed by the UOI and the States. [read post]
29 Jul 2012, 7:30 am
In Ozgul v. [read post]
22 Jun 2022, 7:21 pm
As a result, employers may now see more state whistleblower retaliation claims proceed to trial. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 4:29 pm
On June 13, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Puerto Rico v. [read post]
20 Jan 2010, 7:47 am
In Wood v. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 9:31 pm
Interestingly, in its introduction, the Court stated: "We hold the provision is unconscionable and unenforceable under Armendariz v. [read post]
