Search for: "Smith v. Goldstein"
Results 121 - 140
of 192
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Apr 2018, 1:47 pm
Both cases involve the process of inter partes review added to the Patent Act in 2012 as part of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act. [read post]
31 Oct 2018, 11:21 am
Having spent my time and energy on the first seven cases, I’m going to be fairly summary for the last six; Smith v. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 3:50 am
In Hernandez v. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:00 pm
Smith 13-946Issue: Whether the Ninth Circuit failed to apply the deferential standard of review required by 28 U.S.C. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 4:00 am
” [Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel on an amicus brief in support of respondent Stephens in Harris Funeral Homes v. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 9:37 am
Jones and Smith v. [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 10:30 am
Smith v. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 7:29 am
As I speculated in November, that case involves (in the words of the cert. petition) “yet another Brady case” from the New Orleans District Attorney’s Office, along the lines of Smith v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 5:23 am
Disclaimer: Goldstein & Russell, P.C. serves as counsel to the petitioner this case. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 9:30 pm
Goldstein, Vincent C. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 7:08 am
., v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
Kan. 2002) (acknowledging that most courts require a showing of RR > 2, but questioning their reasoning), aff’d, 356 F. 3d 1326 (10th Cir. 2004) Smith v. [read post]
14 May 2012, 6:12 pm
The seminal case involving the responsibility of cruise lines in dispensing alcohol is a 2004 case here in Miami called Hall v. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 2:23 pm
Smith; and (3) whether the Supreme Court should reaffirm Smith’s hybrid-rights doctrine, applying strict scrutiny to free exercise claims that implicate other fundamental rights, and resolve the circuit split over the doctrine’s precedential status. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 6:50 am
Husted 16-1068 Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel to the petitioners in this case. [read post]
10 Aug 2018, 12:19 pm
Bridgeport v. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 7:59 am
(Harris v. [read post]
25 Jul 2015, 8:11 pm
Sly, Martyn Thomas Smith, Colin L. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:00 pm
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm
” Wired reports on Bowman v. [read post]
