Search for: "United States v. Washington" Results 741 - 760 of 9,057
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jan 2019, 3:54 pm by Kent Scheidegger
United States involves a question of whether the right to jury trial extends to the facts needed to impose a restitution fine. [read post]
20 Aug 2014, 9:58 am
Washington, D.C. - In two related rulings, the United States Supreme Court addressed the standards for granting and reviewing awards of legal fees in patent infringement lawsuits. [read post]
15 May 2023, 3:55 am by Lawrence Solum
Section V reviews an anti-bribery statute enacted by the first Congress. [read post]
25 Aug 2013, 8:56 am by LTA-Editor
” The article discusses the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision inUnited States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
Shah, Assistant to the Solicitor General, will argue for the United States. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 12:05 pm by Torsten M. Kracht
Those cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in In re Facebook Biometric Information Privacy Litigation, 3:15-cv-03747 (Aug. 2015) and are currently stayed pending the Ninth Circuit’s review of Robins v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 10:53 am by Mark Cooke, ACLU of Washington
Again relying on the state constitution, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled (in York v. [read post]
12 Sep 2017, 9:40 am by Florian Mueller
About a month and a half ago, Judge Lucy Koh of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that Samsung had not waived its "article of manufacture" argument in the first Apple v. [read post]
10 Jan 2008, 9:03 am
United States (07-330) in support of the judgment below. [read post]
6 Jan 2007, 8:13 pm
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted the summary reversal of a garnishment order in the matter FG Hemisphere Associates LLC v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 12:25 am
United States, (WD WA, March 23, 2009), a Washington federal district court invalidated a federal regulation (8 CFR 245.2) that makes it more difficult for foreign religious workers to obtain permanent residency status than various other foreign workers. [read post]