Search for: "United States v. Duke"
Results 681 - 700
of 973
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2016, 4:27 pm
Dukes; AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 4:11 am
At the Second Thoughts Blog from the Duke Center for Firearms Law, Daniel Rice examines the court’s “void for vagueness” doctrine and how it might relate to the Second Amendment, drawing on Justice Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 12:03 pm
United States is cited in the following article: Nick Katz, How the States can Fix Sell: Forced Medication of Mentally Ill Criminal Defendants in State Courts, 69 Duke L.J. 735 (2019). 2. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 8:24 am
The Coca-Cola Company v. [read post]
12 Nov 2011, 2:53 pm
State Univ. v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 6:54 am
Dukes More than any other development in 2014, however, the decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
3 May 2012, 5:04 pm
Inc. v. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 10:30 am
The case known as Al Haramain v. [read post]
10 Jul 2015, 2:14 am
Having duked the matter out in the United States Patents and Trademarks Office, and subsequently at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the matter has moved on to the District Court of Virginia, where the decision was handed down only a few days ago.Pro-Football Inc v Amanda Blackhorse et al. [read post]
21 Jan 2021, 12:54 pm
The parties are likewise duking it out about whether the underlying decision at issue in the four-time relist Trump v. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 4:28 pm
v=j0pl_FXt0eMWilliam F. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 11:29 am
The paper describes threshold rescissions, which limit participation based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, restrict the ability to work legally and remain in the United States or adversely affect representation in the political system. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 6:43 am
The circumstance was most apparent because the argument followed immediately upon United States v. [read post]
26 Sep 2011, 12:30 pm
—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any application for extension of a patent term under section 156 of title 35, United States Code, that is pending on, that is filed after, or as to which a decision regarding the application is subject to judicial review on, the date of the enactment of this Act. [read post]
25 Jun 2019, 6:30 am
While Lessig treats Marshall’s opinion in Marbury v. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 7:26 am
Dukes , 131 S. [read post]
21 Oct 2011, 6:09 am
Wilkes trial, the Ninth Circuit decided United States v. [read post]
1 Jan 2007, 11:15 pm
Harlan worries that the amount under guidelines will set off an appeal in the Second Circuit.Harlan is right back to us on Saturday morning with this post concerning whether the Second Circuit panel in United States v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:32 am
United States v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 9:33 am
That’s because in 1995 the Court construed that 1925 statute to apply to the vast majority of contracts made in the United States. [read post]
