Search for: "Spencer v. Spencer " Results 1181 - 1200 of 1,276
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 May 2008, 7:02 am
The Constitution protects against deprivations of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.Somewhere along the way came the notion that the concept of liberty includes freedom from being bad-mouthed by the government, but there's more to it than that, as evidenced by the ruling in April by Judge Jones in Etter v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 7:42 am
This week on the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer, we discuss the recent Supreme Court decision Sprint/United Management Co. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2008, 11:32 am
To celebrate, here's another batch of legal news: Louisiana insurance market recovering, state-run insurer has less risk - Portland attorney David Rossmiller at Dunn Carney in the firm's Insurance Coverage Law Blog DOJ to Pew Report: you forgot to count the children - Texas lawyer Jamie Spencer in his Austin Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog Update: Technology Patents LLC v. [read post]
29 Feb 2008, 5:44 am
That indeed appears to be the case - the SC judgment in the first Laine case (Manzoor Sayeed Khan v. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 2:11 pm
Spencer, No. 06-2517-cr (2d Cir. [read post]
10 Feb 2008, 8:55 pm
Jaime Spencer ponders the morale boost to criminal defense attorneys given by the NY Giants’ upset of the Patriots. [read post]
1 Feb 2008, 12:00 am
: Industries Ltd v Dynamic Supply Pty Ltd: (IP Down Under)BrazilIFPI raids hundreds of internet cafes: 600 cops, one arrest: (Ars Technica)CanadaInterlocutory injunctions in trade mark cases: a difficult test to meet: CMAC Mortgages v Canadian Mortgage Expert Centre and CanadaHyundai Autov Cross Canada Auto Body Supply: (Canadian Trademark Blog), (coverage of Hyundia - IPblog), Privacy Coalition warns on copyright reform: (Michael Geist),Wikinomics on… [read post]
23 Jan 2008, 3:04 am
In the Louisiana case of Harrell v. [read post]
22 Jan 2008, 11:47 am
Spencer, No. 07-40593 "A decision amending a 1995 judgment sentencing defendant for carjacking, resulting in an increase to the amount of restitution owed, is affirmed where: 1) under a reasonable reading of the relevant rules and case law, the district court's amendment amounted to a clerical revision that did not substantively alter defendant's sentence; and 2) thus, the time limitation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 was inapplicable. [read post]