Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 841 - 860
of 4,553
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Oct 2019, 1:34 am
As a result, he failed to make findings on key issues: was there a collaboration ([109]-[112]) and, if so, what was its precise nature ([103]; e.g. [126])? [read post]
12 Aug 2019, 11:50 am
Carson Optical, Inc. v. [read post]
14 Sep 2024, 8:54 pm
In Dow Chemical v. [read post]
9 Sep 2010, 5:14 am
United States v. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 11:15 pm
In [INS v. [read post]
22 May 2008, 11:08 pm
BOTELHO, Petitioners v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 12:21 am
In the new case, United States v. [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 6:21 am
But regulatory and industry consensus, while important to those of us who are watching this case, is not the legal standard. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 12:34 pm
Similarly, a few years earlier in Northwest Austin v. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 6:00 am
Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice O’Connor in Strickland v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 2:47 pm
Which is an awfully high standard. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 11:47 am
Lohrmann v. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 1:40 pm
., and Ethicon US, LLC (collectively, Ethicon) appeal an adverse judgment following a bench trial. [read post]
12 Sep 2014, 5:55 am
Using a common-sense approach to defining the scope of the warrant, we conclude the text file seized falls within the four corners of the warrant.State v. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 10:40 am
Here's some good stuff from Judge Canby on that topic:"We confess considerable uneasiness in applying this standard to the acceptance of campaign contributions because, in our flawed but nearly universal system of private campaign financing, large contributions are commonly given in expectation of favorable official action. . . . [read post]
7 Jan 2012, 7:48 am
The case is Villanueva v. [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 2:48 pm
Though I wish the ruling was just an April Fool's joke, I fear the a Fourth Circuit opinion today in US v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:57 am
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v Nassar, the divided Court rejected the notion that the reduced “motivating factor” standard of causation adopted for use in Title VII discrimination cases applied with equal force to claims of retaliation under the Act. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 5:45 am
The judge then imposed “a low-end standard range sentence of 46 months. [read post]
17 Mar 2016, 7:41 am
§ 101 in Alice Corp. v. [read post]
