Search for: "Long v State"
Results 1381 - 1400
of 45,175
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jun 2010, 9:23 am
" State v. [read post]
9 Nov 2023, 6:37 am
The post Residency v. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 10:00 am
Canning * 17 USC 512(f) Preempts State Law Claims Over Bogus Copyright Takedown Notices–Amaretto v. [read post]
26 Sep 2023, 1:25 pm
As KJK has previously covered, earlier this year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) delivered a landmark ruling on the reach of the protections afforded by the Clean Water Act (CWA) in Sacket v. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 4:27 am
In Alves v 152-154 W. 131st St. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 9:20 am
Walker In Latinos Unidos de Napa v. [read post]
6 Mar 2007, 11:40 am
DotD points to the long-awaited decision from the Ninth in Irons v. [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 3:11 pm
Mite and CTS Corp. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2010, 3:28 am
Justice Edmead's decision in Eaton & Van Winkle LLP v. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 6:50 pm
They reversed the District Court in Hennen v. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 7:24 pm
Today’s opinion in McDonald v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 3:00 pm
BOSTOCK v. [read post]
15 Jun 2020, 12:00 am
BOSTOCK v. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 8:27 am
United States, No. 22-53 Lakshmi Arunachalam v. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 1:53 pm
Addressing the developments from Bostock v. [read post]
20 Jun 2015, 8:16 am
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Davis v. [read post]
19 Jun 2007, 7:35 am
As I have said before, when I read these long capital habeas opinions, I cannot help but wish that federal circuit judges would regularly give as much attention to federal drug offenders directly appealing their long imprisonment sentences as they give to state murderers appealing their death sentences. [read post]
10 Mar 2016, 9:14 am
As acknowledged by an opinion issued by the California Attorney General’s office, the Supreme Court’s decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 8:40 am
I read the decision in Citibank v. [read post]
22 Dec 2022, 3:15 pm
(collectively, “Genentech”) appeal from a decision of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware holding that: (1) the claims of its Liver Function Test (“LFT”) patents1 are unpatentable as obvious, (2) sale of Sandoz Inc. [read post]
