Search for: "In re Doe, b. 11/17/94" Results 101 - 120 of 132
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm by Bexis
R.A.P. 1925(b)) is violated by the losing side’s “preserv[ation of] every unfavorable ruling and contested issue. [read post]
28 Sep 2012, 12:04 am
 We are of the opinion that the above three decisions require to be re-considered as, in our opinion, something which cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 9:21 am by Bernie Burk
  Some of these “JD Advantaged” jobs probably meet the criterion we’re formulating here; some probably don’t. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 5:01 pm by Oliver G. Randl
(see point [11] of the reasons)3. [read post]
20 May 2011, 3:06 pm
Forest Labs., Inc., 527 F.3d 1278, 1291-94 (Fed. [read post]
30 Apr 2011, 5:22 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
In this case, the parties dispute only whether claims 5, 17, and 94 of the ’317 patent and claims 6 and 9 of the ’863 patent encompass Ti818—the parties agree that the remaining asserted claims encompass Ti818. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 9:08 pm
If the examiner addressed all elements of a procedural prima facie case, then the appellant must come forward with argument or evidence.[9] A “prima facie case” procedural challenge is analogous to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in court—it’s a procedural filter that does not test the truth or falsity of the statements, but does require a complete pleading. [read post]
29 Jan 2011, 6:36 am by Mandelman
  She intended to convert the chapter 7 proceeding to a chapter 13 proceeding (11 U.S.C. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 6:05 pm by Joseph C. McDaniel
Zick (In re Zick), 931 F.2d 1124, 1126 (6th Cir. 1991) ("A bankruptcy court decision to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. [read post]
7 May 2010, 3:41 pm by Stephen Page
If the applicant does not prove the case, no protection order is made.3. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 2:47 pm by Beck, et al.
California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 528 n.17 (1983). [read post]