Search for: "SEALED APPELLANT 1"
Results 121 - 140
of 675
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Petitioner asked Justice to amend its report to "unsubstantiated" and that it be sealed. [read post]
29 Nov 2016, 2:40 am
Appellants I and II (opponents 02 and 01) each lodged an appeal against the decision of the opposition division rejecting their oppositions against European patent No. 1 961 632.II. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 9:41 pm
.* Defendant sought a supervisory writ over pretrial suppression issues, and the denial of the writ precludes appellate review of the same issue. [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 7:36 am
App. 537, 539 n.1 (2014). [read post]
5 Nov 2007, 12:35 pm
The court's opinion no doubt had been circulated among the judges and law clerks involved in the case before it was released (almost always the case and almost certainly for a high-profile decision such as this), and apparently none of them perceived any error in the summary of events contained in the original opinion (which the government alleged was information from an appendix that had been placed under seal by the trial court). [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 9:56 am
R. 28(d)(1). [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 9:41 am
Related Posts North Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Application of Governmental Immunity Doctrine in Slip and Fall Case North Carolina Appellate Court Rejects Constitutional Privacy-Based Request to Seal Workers’ Compensation Awards Decision [read post]
9 Oct 2008, 12:34 am
" Does this mean that in these sealed cases, even the existence of the case on appeal will be sealed -- i.e. a secret docket? [read post]
9 Jan 2019, 10:07 am
The takeaway – it’s not over until it’s signed, sealed and delivered! [read post]
9 Nov 2016, 6:48 am
This post examines an opinion from the Oregon Supreme Court: State v. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 9:20 am
§ 1533(b)(1)(A); that the population of bearded seals was plentiful; that a lack of reliable population data made it impossible to determine an extinction threshold; that NMFS’s use of predictive climate projections beyond 2050 were speculative; that NMFS had unreasonably “changed tack” from its previous Arctic sea-ice listing decisions; and that NMFS had failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the loss of sea ice and the impact of that loss to the… [read post]
4 May 2007, 12:21 pm
For publication opinions today (1): William Dixson v. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 8:35 am
App. ___ (Nov. 1, 2022). [read post]
26 May 2006, 7:01 am
An amendment to Standard Probate Form 17.1 and new Standard ProbateForm17.1A are adopted effective June 1, 2006.2. [read post]
Guest Post: Eye witness account of India's first compulsory license appeal before the IPAB [Part II]
8 Mar 2013, 2:47 am
S. 84 (1) (b) of the Act very explicitly states that the patented invention must be made reasonably affordable to the public if a compulsory license is to be avoided. [read post]
27 Oct 2016, 1:20 am
§ 1533(b)(1)(A); that the population of bearded seals was plentiful; that a lack of reliable population data made it impossible to determine an extinction threshold; that NMFS’s use of predictive climate projections beyond 2050 were speculative; that NMFS had unreasonably “changed tack” from its previous Arctic sea-ice listing decisions; and that NMFS had failed to demonstrate a causal connection between the loss of sea ice and the impact of that loss to the… [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 6:31 pm
The appellants in Aamer v. [read post]
14 Jan 2013, 6:02 am
United States Department of Defense (11-cv-00890), United States District Court for the District of Columbia Judge James Boasberg rejected a Freedom of Information Act [5 U.S.C. sec. 552 et seq.] request by conservative watchdog Judicial Watchdog, Inc. to release 52 images concerning the death and burial of bin Laden on the grounds that the depictions were inflammatory and posed a national security risk, (See "TUOL" posts 4/27/12, 1/30/12.)The group made its case for reversal of the lower… [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 11:20 am
Proc. 4(a)(1). [read post]
12 May 2014, 8:48 am
The plaintiff claims that the court erred in (1) denying his motion to seal the trial court’s memorandum of decision, (2) mentioning his erased arrest record in its decision and improperly drawing an adverse inference from his assertion of the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, (3) declining to award him alimony, (4) finding him to be in contempt of the court’s automatic orders pursuant to Practice Book § 25-5, (5) ordering the parties to pay the… [read post]
