Search for: "People v. Downs" Results 7421 - 7440 of 16,918
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Apr 2024, 7:16 am by Michael C. Dorf
§ 1512) that was at issue in yesterday's oral argument in Fischer v. [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 4:30 am by Eric Segall
Bruen striking down a New York law requiring a special permit to conceal carry a handgun. [read post]
7 Apr 2013, 7:26 pm
  He described the circuit split leading to FTC v Actavis currently pending in the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 11:45 am by Michael C. Dorf
The day after it decided Bruen, the Court handed down its decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 6:02 pm by Contributor
Since then, the chatter on the issue of strategic litigation against public participation (SLAPP) appears to have died down. [read post]
10 Oct 2014, 12:51 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Not sure he has new things to say about that general topic.Cathay Smith: In the ideal situation, would Rogers v. [read post]
17 Feb 2025, 12:33 am by INFORRM
Poland The ECtHR handed down judgement in P v Poland (Application no. 56310/15) on 13 February 2025. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 5:09 am
(Docket Report) (271 Patent Blog) District Court E D Texas: Defendant may not present jury argument concerning KSR’s change to obviousness standard: Datatreasurycorp v Wells Fargo & Co et al (Docket Report) District Court E Texas: Entire operating system cannot serve as royalty base where only the workspace switching feature is accused of infringement: IP Innovation, LLC. et al v. [read post]
28 Jul 2022, 11:14 am by Ilya Somin
OSHA (striking down the OSHA large employer mandate), and Biden v. [read post]
12 Mar 2010, 5:09 am
(Docket Report) (271 Patent Blog) District Court E D Texas: Defendant may not present jury argument concerning KSR’s change to obviousness standard: Datatreasurycorp v Wells Fargo & Co et al (Docket Report) District Court E Texas: Entire operating system cannot serve as royalty base where only the workspace switching feature is accused of infringement: IP Innovation, LLC. et al v. [read post]