Search for: "State v. Ervin" Results 61 - 80 of 115
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jan 2017, 11:25 pm
In referring the question on Art 3(a) as to what was required for a product to be protected by a basic patent, he stated that he was “encouraged by what the [CJEU] said in Actavis v Sanofi and Actavis v Boehringer to believe that there is a realistic prospect of the Court providing further and better guidance to that which it has hitherto provided” (para 91). [read post]
14 Nov 2020, 1:58 pm by Sandy Levinson
, where the answer is basically because over 200 years of systematic opposition to the idiocy of that system has proved unavailing against the barriers of Article V, most dramatically in 1969, where the Senate, because of a filibuster led by white supremacists Southern senators Sam Ervin and Strom Thurmond, never voted on a proposal that had in fact gained the assent of two-thirds of the House of Representatives and perhaps would have gotten the two thirds had the Senate been… [read post]
11 Oct 2020, 6:30 am by Sandy Levinson
  This is just the way the “state unit” system works, whatever the Supreme Court had suggested in Gray v. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 8:13 am by Carolyn Shapiro
The year before Harlan’s nomination the Supreme Court decided Brown v. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 9:00 pm by Austin Sarat
Rees decision and approved the use of midazolam in 2015 in Glossip v. [read post]