Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 1341 - 1360
of 4,554
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2022, 2:46 pm
In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Jul 2018, 12:44 pm
& Co. v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 6:42 am
The issue in the case is whether a generic manufacturer that is sued for infringement by a brand-name manufacturer may file a counterclaim that the information on the patent listed with the FDA does not accurately and precisely claim the method of use claimed in the patent. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 10:05 am
In Akamai v. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 10:05 am
In Akamai v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 9:28 am
As a result of the vague standards set out in the statute the courts have developed a test to determine whether a nonprofit hospital is entitled to tax exemption.[7] The test was first articulated in Methodist Old Peoples Home v. [read post]
3 Jun 2020, 8:15 am
Texas, 18-9674Issue: Whether the standard for assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims, announced in Strickland v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 8:57 am
So what are the standards for amending? [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 12:02 pm
(Ok, that wins for most misleading analogy, since the seizure of the domain names (bank account) is precisely done b/c the “bank” (registrant) is a wrongdoer.) [read post]
12 Feb 2019, 10:30 am
” Berkeley Hills Watershed Coalition v. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 10:40 am
And, these statutes are precise and detailed, and we know that those who file liens are held to a very high standard. [read post]
17 Feb 2009, 12:44 pm
The court held: Petitioner contends that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London (545 US 469 [2005]), which dealt with takings for purposes of economic development, requires a preexisting farmland preservation plan to justify the taking of its property as a public use within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment (see US Const Amend V ["nor shall private property be taken for public use,… [read post]
20 Oct 2006, 1:49 pm
Neighborhood Ass'n of the Back Bay, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2016, 1:08 pm
In Ariosa v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 1:52 pm
 But I have a few problems with the use of this rationale here. [read post]
12 May 2011, 3:47 pm
In American Electric Power Co. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2020, 8:13 pm
In Valente v. [read post]
28 Jan 2018, 8:06 pm
The term “legal debate” is used here not to express a new standard or one departing from that previously outlined by this Court. [read post]
26 Feb 2015, 5:00 am
The only proper theory was negligence:Since the strict liability rule of §402A is not applicable, the standard of care required is that set forth in §388 of the Restatement dealing with the liability of a supplier of a chattel known to be dangerous for its intended use. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 10:04 am
["I write separately to emphasize the narrowness of the issue before us. [read post]
