Search for: "John Doe - 1" Results 8261 - 8280 of 14,620
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2009, 11:05 pm
Indeed, the Bush Administration gave John Yoo a post in OLC precisely because it believed that he would decide questions the way it liked. [read post]
14 Sep 2020, 11:32 am by Anne Joseph O'Connell
Nielsen received support from Department of Homeland Security General Counsel John Mitnick to install McAleenan as acting secretary. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 8:02 am
But her husband, John, occasionally tells her things about others involved in the operation. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 1:14 pm by Robin Frazer Clark
  The facts of the case were egregious:  The Plaintiff’s late husband, John K. [read post]
3 Jul 2007, 10:47 am
John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966), factors still control an obviousness inquiry. [read post]
23 Dec 2023, 7:16 pm by admin
”[1]   Kristen Ranges recently earned her law degree from the University of Miami School of Law, and her doctorate in Environmental Science and Policy, from the University of Miami Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric, and Earth Science. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 8:53 am
Emory generates $1 billion in revenues and has 8400 employees. [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 10:23 am by WSLL
Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; John W. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 5:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Indeed, even if a law school does want to say that one side is correct—again, something I'd recommend against, for reasons given in the University of Chicago's Kalven Report[1]—it can do so, while still stressing that it's important for people to hear both sides: Come hear John Peters and Jane Williams debate immigration policy! [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 9:23 am by Philip Thomas
     Plaintiff Baby John Doe 1)     $45,852.67  for past medical expenses 2)     $1,500,000.00 for future medical expenses 3)     $25,000.00 for pain and suffering 4)     $75,000.00 for future lost wages TOTAL:          $1,645,852.67  The verdict will be reduced by 15% to factor in  the father's apportioned… [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 6:16 pm
They claimed that they misunderstood the requirements of Section 1(a), did not understand the legal meaning of "use in commerce," and "honestly believed that their ownership of the same mark in Australia and their use in commerce of such mark in Australia justified their Section 1(a) filing in the U.S. [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 2:12 pm by Jamie Markham
(John Rubin discussed some of those offenses in this post, which provides helpful background.) [read post]