Search for: "In re: Justice v."
Results 9541 - 9560
of 17,878
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Sep 2014, 4:08 am
Supreme Court case called Terry v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 12:48 pm
Eleven years in prison.On the merits, one can find little technical fault with Justice Needham's workmanlike opinion. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 11:26 am
In United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2014, 7:27 am
Here’s the introduction: In June 2014, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Riley v. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 1:52 pm
At least we think they’re distinguishable. [read post]
4 Sep 2014, 3:19 am
[v] The SEC Certainly the majority of the federal activity on cyber security issues has come from the SEC. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 4:01 pm
This is the question which the IPKat posed last Friday, on learning that Case C-661/13 Astellas Pharma Inc. v Polpharma SA Pharmaceutical Works, a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of some questions relating to the so-called Bolar exemption, which spares some sorts of use of someone else's patent for experimental purposes from being a patent infringement. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 2:06 pm
State appeared first on Dallas Justice. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 9:53 am
The court began by concluding that the proper test was strict scrutiny; though Justice Stephen Breyer’s controlling opinion in Alvarez v. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 9:51 am
Abbott Town of Atherton v. [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 7:16 am
Co. v. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 11:30 pm
Army war und daher […] nicht nach dem Uniform Code of Military Justice beurteilt würde. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 9:42 am
Dans Abbott and Haliburton Company v. [read post]
30 Aug 2014, 9:19 am
Vermont Transco LLC v. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 8:04 am
The case of Conrad v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 11:25 am
But in New York and many other states, if you're poor and you enter the broken criminal justice system, justice is a gamble. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 9:10 am
The discrimination claim, having held that illegality did not prevent it, was not amenable to further challenge despite the attempt to introduce new points in the case (concerning the private household exemption re nationality in the Race Relations Act 1976 (but which not does not appear in the Equality Act 2010) and the correct comparator for direct discrimination with echoes of Patmalniece v SSWP [2011] UKSC 11 and Lewisham v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43). [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 6:00 am
” Strickler v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 5:10 am
And indeed, the New York Court of Appeals has approved their use, per People v. [read post]
