Search for: "State v. Save" Results 6581 - 6600 of 11,764
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2013, 2:32 pm
The Shield Act (stands for Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes) claims to be a solution to this. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 11:56 am by Raffaela Wakeman
And as we saw in the Boston Marathon bombing incident, home-grown terrorists or terrorists who are sleeper cells inside the United States are a threat. . . [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 5:31 pm by Michelle N. Meyer
One might have thought that the Court went out of its way to avoid finding that the primary purpose of the DNA collection at issue is “to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing,” (Indianapolis v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 9:52 am by Jason Mazzone
With the Supreme Court poised to decide Shelby County v. [read post]
1 Jun 2013, 2:03 pm by Florian Mueller
But some people want the Federal Circuit to destroy intellectual property with a hammer only to deprive itself and all other courts in the United States of the opportunity to decide on interoperability based on what happens to an API after its creation and on what a defendant wants to do with it and to it.The EFF's submissions are, of course, consistent with Google's appellate brief, which even argued that intellectual property protection can be lost over time, mentioning Aspirin as one… [read post]
28 May 2013, 11:20 am by Lyle Denniston
   The case refused to hear the states’ plea in Montana v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 3:30 am by David Oscar Markus
An additional 12 percent ended with some but not all defendants pleading guilty, an outcome with less systemic and cost-saving benefits because a jury trial must still be held.In the state system, judges play a larger role in plea bargaining. [read post]
27 May 2013, 9:28 am by Giles Peaker
He states that you take regular medication. [read post]
27 May 2013, 9:28 am by Giles Peaker
He states that you take regular medication. [read post]
26 May 2013, 3:05 am by Administrator
Federation of Law Societies of Canada v. [read post]