Search for: "USA v. AL Power Company, et al" Results 81 - 100 of 150
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Mar 2010, 7:40 am by Adam Chandler
  [Disclosure:  Howe & Russell represented respondents Irvin Muchnick et al. in the case.] [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 8:58 am by WIMS
  The Climate Post: Court Hears Arguments Surrounding EPA Power Plant Rule State of West Virginia, et al. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 6:43 pm by Schachtman
Martin, et al., New York Evidence Handbook  318 (2d ed. 2002)). [read post]
18 Jul 2009, 7:31 am
As Chairman Schapiro explained the change, “in investigations that require subpoena power, time is always of the essence. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm by Anna Christensen
United StatesDocket: 09-1227Issue(s): Whether a criminal defendant convicted under a federal statute has standing to challenge her conviction on grounds that, as applied to her, the statute is beyond the federal government’s enumerated powers and inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.Certiorari-Stage Documents:Opinion below (3d Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionPetitioner's reply Title: Von Saher v. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 8:00 am
(Afro-IP)   Europe Advocate General opines advertisement comparing perfume to L’Oreal’s did not infringe trade marks; translation issue: L’Oréal v Bellure (Out-Law) (IPKat) (Class 46) (IPKat) (Class 46) (Managing Intellectual Property) (Law360) Advocate General opines in Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening concerning the storing and printing of small amounts of text extract from newspapers (IPKat),… [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:11 am by Christa Culver
§ 1140, permits an employer to discharge an employee for making unsolicited internal complaints regarding violations of the statute.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (3d Cir.)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionAmicus brief of the American Association of Retired PersonsPetitioner's reply Title: Philip Morris USA Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 5:00 am by Bexis
  511 U.S. at 534-37 (statute unconstitutionally operated “retroactively, divesting [plaintiff] of property long after the company believed its liabilities . . . to have been settled”) (O’Connor, J., et al.). [read post]
5 Dec 2008, 3:00 pm
(The Prior Art) Ways to avoid a USPTO ethics investigation (IP Updates)   US Patents – Decisions CAFC: Qualcomm penalised for failure to disclose patents to standard setting organisation and for litigation misconduct in failing to produce evidence: Qualcomm Inc v Broadcom Corp (IP Law Observer) (Patently-O) (Promote the Progress) (Law360) (Patent Prospector) (Hal Wegner) (PLI) CAFC upholds judgment enjoining inventor from asserting patent against Unitronics or its… [read post]