Search for: "US v. David Adams" Results 921 - 940 of 1,054
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jul 2019, 1:10 pm by Lundgren & Johnson, PSC
The first published case to determine the admissibility of expert testimony regarding retrograde extrapolation was State v. [read post]
27 Nov 2011, 3:50 pm
BuchananProfessor Dorf's post here on Monday mentioned a front-page article from Sunday's New York Times, in which David Segal assailed the supposed problem that law schools do not teach "lawyering. [read post]
21 May 2010, 1:11 pm by Jeff Gamso
 The details don't really matter here.What got me rolling on this, are Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Volokh Conspirator David Bernstein's response/attack to "Bruce Bartlett's Attack on Libertarianism," and David Rittger's piece at the Cato@Liberty blog warning that US v. [read post]
28 Jan 2017, 8:07 pm by Nora Ellingsen
Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, tweeted a letter he sent to John Kelly, the head of the Department of Homeland Security. [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am by Schachtman
The physician in question also relied upon radiographic interpretations form unregistered and uncertified technicians and radiologists, who had used unregistered and uncertified equipment. [read post]
15 Feb 2008, 9:00 am
: (Spicy IP),USD 20 billion going off-patent: (Patent Circle),Canadian Prices Review Board asserts jurisdiction over products sold in US, but imported into Canada under Special Access Program: (Gowlings),Canadian Court of Appeal affirms decision allowing patent-owner to be joined to proceedings: Cobalt v Pfizer and Pharmascience v Pfizer: (Gowlings),PharmaStem appeals stem cell patent: asks for greater deference to patent examiners:… [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 9:05 pm by Max Masuda-Farkas
Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 10:35 am by Tara Hofbauer
The Supreme Court reached a decision today in Riley v. [read post]
18 Aug 2013, 10:16 am by Jonathan H. Adler
It provides more useful background on the court and the controversy it engenders. [read post]