Search for: "Officer Grant Smith"
Results 781 - 800
of 3,035
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Apr 2020, 6:50 am
Williams; and (3) whether, reviewed de novo or with deference, the 10th Circuit erred in granting habeas relief on the respondent Roderick Smith’s claim of adaptive-functioning deficits when Smith’s only expert to opine on this prong improperly administered the adaptive-functioning assessment directly to Smith, contemporaneously administered other tests to Smith that showed malingering and relied on information that was disputed by other… [read post]
8 Apr 2020, 6:23 am
The Court emphasized the narrow scope of its holding, saying that the presence of additional facts may dispel reasonable suspicion and offering the example of a situation where an officer observes that a driver does not appear to be the registered owner. [read post]
2 Apr 2020, 8:10 am
The defendant ran a red light and was stopped by a Charlotte police officer. [read post]
1 Apr 2020, 6:58 am
” The basic grant of authority to extend deadlines provides: (a) IN GENERAL. [read post]
29 Mar 2020, 8:33 pm
In Smith v. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 4:50 pm
In particular, the CARES Act temporarily authorizes the Director of the USPTO – for the duration of what is referred to in the Act as the “emergency period” – to “toll, waive, adjust, or modify, any timing deadline established by title 35, United States Code, the Trademark Act, section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act [referencing the nine-month timeframe for filing a post-grant review] … or regulations promulgated thereunder” if… [read post]
26 Mar 2020, 7:09 am
—During the emergency period described in subsection (e), the Director may toll, waive, adjust, or modify, any timing deadline established by title 35, United States Code, the Trademark Act, 19 section 18 of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (35 U.S.C. 321 note), or regulations promulgated thereunder, in effect during such period, if the Director determines that the emergency related to such period— (1) materially affects the functioning of the Patent and Trademark… [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 1:00 am
Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 3:04 pm
Smith & Nephew, Inc. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 2:10 pm
Smith & Nephew, a decision that made the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) administrative patent judges (APJs) “inferior officers” under the U.S. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 1:56 pm
If you have any questions on whether your business is “essential” under this new measure, or have any other questions with respect to workforce management in the wake of COVID-19, please contact Reed Smith’s labor and employment team. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 1:45 pm
NOTE: Even though the clerk’s office is open, it is our understanding that the clerk’s office is not requiring paper briefs to be filed until 5 days after the Justice Building reopens.Delegates to the Clerk authority to grant COVID-19 extensions. [read post]
21 Mar 2020, 10:19 am
A: Yes, Governor Abbott granted the Texas Workforce Commission’s request to suspend the one-week waiting period. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 4:03 pm
Smith, 57 F.2d 227, 237-39) (E.D. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 9:00 am
The Busiest Government Office Award: U.S. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 9:00 am
The Busiest Government Office Award: U.S. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 8:43 pm
[This is a version of a letter I sent to the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property today to call attention to various discrepancies in the proposed witness list, especially the presence of the Pirate Party at a hearing at the world’s greatest deliberative body. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 3:50 am
The operating agreement granted 75 of its 100 “shares” to Flink and the remaining 25 to Smith, with Dominelli and Coughlin initially as non-member contract partners. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 11:29 pm
Bruce MaCEwenAdam Smith, Esq. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 11:12 am
After the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in All American Check Cashing, the Fifth Circuit granted the petition for en banc review in Collins v. [read post]
