Search for: "Mays v. State"
Results 7661 - 7680
of 119,413
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 May 2011, 7:42 am
United States v. [read post]
14 May 2008, 5:15 am
State v. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 10:33 pm
United States v. [read post]
2 Jul 2011, 5:11 am
United States v. [read post]
20 May 2012, 4:23 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 5:19 am
State v. [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 6:42 am
State v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 10:43 am
The case of Williams-Yulee v. [read post]
22 Jan 2025, 12:30 pm
Requests for information and public comments regarding the foregoing may be directed to: Eugene Sarfoh, Esq., Counsel, New York State Department of Civil Service, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12239, (518) 473-2624, e-mail: public.comments@cs.ny.gov [read post]
22 Jan 2025, 12:30 pm
Requests for information and public comments regarding the foregoing may be directed to: Eugene Sarfoh, Esq., Counsel, New York State Department of Civil Service, Empire State Plaza, Albany, NY 12239, (518) 473-2624, e-mail: public.comments@cs.ny.gov [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 10:57 am
State, which discusses American Libraries Ass'n. v. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am
Referendums in the UK are not legally binding, although Parliament may be morally bound to follow their results. 14:08: Dominic Chambers QC begins by addressing Lord Carnworth’s question from the previous session, in relation to the Youssef case, before continuing with Stage 3 of his submissions – in the absence of Parliamentary authorisation to nullify or override the statutes, the Executive will be acting unlawfully. 14:04: The afternoon session is about to begin. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 11:41 pm
It may be accepted under certain circumstances [See State of Haryana v. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 5:39 pm
In United States v. [read post]
2 Apr 2022, 9:57 am
This comes from SGS Sports Inc. v. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 9:00 pm
Miller v. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 8:47 am
In Horgan v. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 1:34 pm
In Limith v. [read post]
22 Jul 2023, 12:22 pm
That lawsuit, Boudreaux v. [read post]
2 Dec 2014, 7:35 am
A key point in this reasoning is that the patent itself did not state that the compounds disclosed and claimed therein had activity, only that 'the nucleosides of the invention "may inhibit Flaviviridae polymerase activity" and "can be screened" for such activity using known assays'.Therefore the patent, as granted or proposed to be amended, was held to lack inventive step.SufficiencyFor analogous reasons to the lack of inventive step, the patent… [read post]
