Search for: "MacK v. United States" Results 81 - 100 of 116
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 May 2015, 2:24 pm by John Elwood
United States, 14-8358, won a grant after just one relist. [read post]
21 Sep 2014, 8:20 pm by Dennis Crouch
S. 633 (2010) (quoting, for its current relevance, statement in United States v. [read post]
5 May 2015, 3:45 am by Amy Howe
The Court also asked the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in Nebraska v. [read post]
3 Apr 2022, 9:30 pm by ernst
  He was teaching English at Howard University when the United States entered the First World War in 1917. [read post]
13 Jan 2025, 9:30 pm by ernst
  Her father, Samuel William Weiss (b. 1852) was the son of William Weiss (b. 1819), who had been born in Austria in 1819, emigrated to the United States in 1848, and become a grocer in a small town in northeastern Pennsylvania. [read post]
11 Aug 2020, 2:48 am by Schachtman
During and after this time frame, J-M sold asbestos insulation to the United States military. [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am by Bexis
  In this version of the story, the role of “Mack” is played by Herricks v. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 9:24 am by Lyle Denniston
United States), and will clarify the standard for summoning a special three-judge U.S. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 5:55 am by Barbara Bavis
  Further, the United States Supreme Court recently heard arguments in Vance v. [read post]
5 Jun 2015, 7:32 am by John Elwood
Mack, 14-990, concerns 28 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
Citizens, 1919-1924Conveners: Kenneth Mack, Harvard Law School (kmack@law.harvard.edu), Laurie Wood, Florida State University (lmwood@fsu.edu), Jacqueline Briggs, University of Toronto - Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies (jacq.briggs@mail.utoronto.ca), and John Wertheimer, Davidson College (jow [read post]
18 May 2010, 1:10 am
Dustcontrol International (EPLAW)   United Kingdom EWHC (Pat): Infringement action won't be stayed pending foreign decision in non-patent claim: Elmotech Ltd & Anor v Guidance Ltd & Anor (PatLit)   United States US General Director Kappos testimony to Congress (Patently-O) Judge Michel: USPTO should receive $1 billion infusion of cash (Patently-O) (Inventive Step) The US Reporting on IPRs - the Watch List (IP tango) Industrial design in… [read post]
6 Jul 2023, 4:00 am by SHG
The point is that an injunction against the United States cannot, ever, be “unconstitutional. [read post]