Search for: "Waites v. State"
Results 8061 - 8080
of 12,160
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2019, 1:11 am
[1] Cohen v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 1:11 am
[1] Cohen v. [read post]
11 Aug 2017, 8:08 am
Procedural: qui tam structure (addressing fraud on the public, misuse of a state grant). [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 6:15 am
Moyer v. [read post]
24 Mar 2024, 8:50 am
This decision followed the Second Circuit’s earlier decision in Hamilton International Ltd v. [read post]
10 Dec 2015, 8:39 am
[v] U.S. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 12:43 am
Apple, the App Store antitrust case that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear in 2 1/2 weeks.I discussed Epic v. [read post]
28 Mar 2019, 11:34 pm
Qualcomm scored some points, but probably not enough (quantitatively and qualitatively speaking) to prevent the FTC from prevailing on at least one or two key claims (we're all still waiting for Judge Lucy H. [read post]
19 Oct 2010, 6:10 pm
Why wait until an accident happens? [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 2:02 pm
(But wait, there’s more!) [read post]
11 Aug 2013, 4:26 pm
The court’s decision in Sutherland v. [read post]
14 Jan 2010, 9:47 am
Corp. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 9:44 am
Regents of the University of California, involving the Trump administration’s decision to unwind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA; and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. [read post]
30 Jun 2012, 12:27 pm
Just look at United States v. [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 11:26 pm
" Oakley, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2011, 3:08 am
See Sai Maa v. [read post]
17 May 2024, 6:00 am
We note that the Helsinki decision is under appeal (UPC CoA_500/2023) and no doubt court users wait with bated breath to see the outcome. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 3:06 pm
Teleflex and Bilski v. [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 7:05 am
v. [read post]
7 Sep 2007, 12:55 am
On the other hand, if the court rejects the request, the recipient must wait a full year before attempting to get permission to speak about what has happened to them once again.The court struck down these rules as a prior restraint on speech that was not justified by the judicial standards of Freedman v. [read post]
