Search for: "Court v. Administrative Office"
Results 7701 - 7720
of 13,894
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2011, 3:55 am
Barred the “overlap of vacations” by police officers and sergeants on the same tour; and 2. [read post]
24 Mar 2019, 3:26 pm
| PI awarded following disagreement with EPO on added matter - Novartis v Dr Reddy's | Court of Appeal reaffirms English Court as forum for SEP disputes | The novelty of “on sale inventions” under a confidentiality agreement with regards to an “on sale” invention: the US Supreme Court rules | China IP Office released major IP statistics of 2018 | New Chinese E-Commerce Law and its impact on IPR protection | Hola, I will have… [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 4:49 pm
KirbyIn Christopher v. [read post]
26 May 2021, 4:00 am
R v Beaver, 2020 ABCA 203 (CanLII) [13] A court must be satisfied of two things before excluding evidence under s.24(2): first, that the evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any of the rights or freedoms guaranteed by the Charter; and second, that admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute (R v Wittwer, 2008 SCC 33 at para 19; R v Strachan, 1988 CanLII 25 (SCC), [1988] 2 SCR 980 at 1005-1006). [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 8:35 pm
Back in 2012, Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is constitutional in its highly controversial decision in NFIB v. [read post]
13 May 2014, 10:51 am
See, e.g., EEOC v. [read post]
16 May 2019, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court to revisit Roe v. [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 9:01 am
He began his practice in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. [read post]
26 Jul 2012, 10:33 am
Arizona applies: (1) unless the officer objectively should have known that his question was likely to elicit an incriminating response, as some courts have held; (2) unless the officer’s intent was to elicit an incriminating response, as other courts have held; or (3) to all questions that serve a legitimate administrative function, regardless of whether the officer should have known that the questions would likely elicit an incriminating… [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 11:20 am
In 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States released its opinion in the case National Collegiate Athletic Association v. [read post]
18 Feb 2010, 7:06 am
Most insurance company's have their main offices located outside of Texas. [read post]
8 Dec 2010, 5:28 pm
District Court for the Northern District of California: Ravenwood School District v. [read post]
27 Oct 2012, 10:25 am
(Kenneth Anderson) The Washington Post has just featured three major consecutive front-page stories on “The Permanent War” – the war on terror (or however one wants to label it), as the US moves from Obama 1 to either an Obama 2 or a Romney administration – and administrations after that. [read post]
5 Jan 2015, 9:01 pm
The following year, the Court held, in Davis v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 1:20 pm
Rule 16(b)(3)(v) is also amended to permit a court’s scheduling order to “direct that before moving for an order relating to discovery, the movant must request a conference with the court. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 9:12 am
The 8th Circuit's ruling in Williams v. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 12:50 pm
Congressional power to establish the terms and conditions of the patent grant includes the power to establish a system for administrative correction of erroneously granted patents.PTAB error correction is also narrow in scope, targeted towards bad patents that district court litigation would not address, and only a modest extension of prior administrative correction proceedings. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 6:00 am
Office of the United States Trustee v. [read post]
29 Jul 2013, 2:21 pm
By Karin Johnson and Megan Grant* When the Supreme Court issued its opinion in U.S. v. [read post]
