Search for: "I v. B"
Results 101 - 120
of 27,529
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2010, 6:38 pm
“[I]n Cohen v. dela Cruz, the Supreme Court held that the reach of § 523(a)(2)(A) is not limited to the amount of benefit received by the debtor. [read post]
11 Jun 2009, 2:50 pm
United States v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 5:55 pm
Garrick B. [read post]
19 Aug 2014, 1:48 pm
§ 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), which provides that a noncitizen may be removed if he has... [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 8:17 am
State v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 1:13 pm
Anthony List v. [read post]
25 Oct 2007, 8:06 pm
I'm confused.A's girlfriend calls B a "crab". [read post]
23 Jan 2014, 6:15 am
§ 154(b)(1)(B)(ii) for reasons I’ll discuss below, but it creates an unfortunate, and surely unintended impact on RCEs specifically, as well as continuation practice generally. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day, Chamberlain v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 9:31 am
Last week, while I was preparing for and had the unique opportunity of arguing a real, live TTAB final hearing on the merits, outside the TTAB’s typical oral hearing location (because it was selected by the TTAB to be part of the ABA’s IPLSpring continuing education conference in Bethesda, Maryland), the Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 2:27 am
Paragraphs 4(b)(i) and (ii) include the phrase “primary purpose”; paragraph 4(b)(ii) implies it. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 6:46 am
I was glad to see Dave get the Twombly/Iqbal train rolling this month. [read post]
15 Mar 2022, 3:17 pm
Sure, when Mom and B are married, I generally know the answer. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 3:07 pm
B. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2021, 7:04 am
Saada v. [read post]
22 Nov 2019, 12:43 pm
Haiti” and “’Clash of the Cruiserweights’ Krzysztof Woldarczyk v. [read post]
2 May 2023, 2:20 am
— (I) EFFECTIVENESS OF APPLICATION. [read post]
16 May 2016, 9:59 pm
§ 102(b) in Merck & Cie v. [read post]
1 Jul 2014, 6:49 pm
Foglia v. [read post]
13 Aug 2019, 12:36 pm
District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision to overturn USCIS’s denial (on Specialty Occupation grounds) in RELX, Inc. d/b/a/ LexisNexis USA, and Subhasree Chatterjee v. [read post]
