Search for: "Tom Goldstein"
Results 1121 - 1130
of 1,130
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2006, 6:45 am
Tom Goldstein is a bit peeved at how late the Court is granting certiorari. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 7:24 pm
Over at SCOTUSblog, posts by Tom Goldstein and Marty Lederman highlight how light the Supreme Court docket is this Term and ask whether there "are any particular categories of cases -- defined by subject-matter, reasons-for-grant, or otherwise -- to which the Court is being insufficiently attentive. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 2:58 pm
"An Update on the State of the Docket": At "SCOTUSblog," Tom Goldstein has this interesting post about the state of the U.S. [read post]
30 Nov 2006, 8:04 am
Money Quote(s): From the NYT: When [veteran SCOTUS litigator Tom] Goldstein noted that "every single major patent bar association in the country has filed on our side," the chief justice interjected: "Well, which way does that cut? [read post]
29 Nov 2006, 2:13 pm
In an unrelated case, Tom Goldstein is counsel of record on this newly-filed Reply Brief in the case of Gilmore v. [read post]
27 Nov 2006, 3:59 pm
Goldstein of Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer, & Feld, L.L.P. will argue on behalf of respondents Teleflex. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 12:10 pm
Note: Ken is co-counsel with Tom Goldstein for respondent Teleflex in the case KSR v. [read post]
5 Nov 2006, 7:35 am
Because for every rule, there's an exception, for behind every exception there's an amazing success story.For me, Tom Goldstein's amazing success as a Supreme Court practitioner (he's now at Akin, Gump, after running Goldstein Howe, now Howe Russell) for several years is the best reason not to listen to experts all of the time. [read post]
4 Aug 2006, 6:01 am
Fans of SCOTUSblog won't want to miss its founder, Tom Goldstein, who will be speaking about the U.S. [read post]
1 Dec 2004, 6:02 am
In the following post here, Tom Goldstein ventures to state that Justice Ginsburg's questions probably do not mean that the Booker/Fanfan decisions will be delayed, "[b]ut it does suggest (albeit certainly not decisively) to me something more: that the government lost Booker / Fanfan. [read post]
