Search for: "Defendants A-F"
Results 9401 - 9420
of 29,832
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Oct 2009, 1:12 am
Rios, 661 F.2d 655, 673 (7th Cir. 1981). [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 9:22 pm
Van Shutters, 163 F.3d 331, 336-37 (6th Cir. 1998)). [read post]
7 Dec 2009, 1:40 pm
Hersom, No. 07-2401 Defendant's conviction for maliciously destroying by fire a building owned by an institution receiving Federal financial assistance in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 844(f) is affirmed where: 1) in general, the statute should be limited to arson of property acquired, renovated, or leased using federal financial assistance; 2) section 844(f) is constitutional and it applies to defendant's conduct in this case; but 3)… [read post]
21 Jul 2008, 9:00 pm
Sherwin-Williams Co. (1st Cir. 1993) 3 F.3d 546. [read post]
7 Nov 2007, 11:32 am
Swope, 91 F.2d 260, 262 (9th Cir. 1937) (unexecuted sentence). [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 8:55 am
Carter, 378 F.3d 584, 587 (6th Cir. 2004) (en banc). [read post]
24 May 2010, 3:13 am
See generally In re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation, 309 F. [read post]
12 May 2016, 1:02 pm
Any criminal defendant . . . being tried by a jury is entitled to the uncoerced verdict of that body. [read post]
11 Mar 2010, 12:37 pm
Decio, 584 F.2d 186 (7th Cir. 1978) (Indiana law); Schein v. [read post]
28 Nov 2007, 4:39 am
Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1999), but held that under California law “courts can take an aggregate approach to plaintiffs' claims,” id., at 313. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 9:35 am
Defendants argued that the court should have awarded five separate awards (one per defendant). [read post]
28 May 2013, 10:32 am
In this case, the defendants argued that claims were obvious and anticipated as a matter of law. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 2:49 pm
In the context of a dispute concerning whether or not a given royalty is [F]RAND, a proper methodology used to determine a [F]RAND royalty should therefore recognize and seek to mitigate the risk of patent hold-up that [F]RAND commitments are intended to avoid."" [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 8:26 am
(g) If the court discharges the defendant under Subsection (f)(2), the defendant is released from all penalties and disabilities resulting from the offense except that the defendant is considered to have been convicted of the offense if the defendant is subsequently convicted of an offense under Section 161.252 committed after the dismissal under Subsection (f)(2). [read post]
9 Jun 2015, 12:17 pm
., 765 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2014). [read post]
12 Jan 2010, 5:00 am
Catholic Health Initiatives, 509 F. 3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2007). [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 5:15 am
Etilize, Inc., 528 F. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 2:00 am
Upham, 168 F.3d 532, 535 (1st Cir. 1999); Guest v. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 5:55 am
Powell, 444 F. [read post]
22 Sep 2006, 8:43 am
" Rattoballi, 452 F. 3d at 133-34. [read post]
