Search for: "Hughes v. State" Results 1441 - 1460 of 1,956
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jun 2007, 6:17 pm
  He focused on the three-factor test created by the Ninth Circuit in Adaptive Power Solutions, LLC v .Hughes Missile Systems Co, 141 F. 3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 1998). [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 5:32 am by Andrew Hamm
” Lastly, about Ortiz v. [read post]
12 Dec 2015, 7:09 am by Elina Saxena
Ben alerted us to the European Court of Human Rights’ opinion in Roman Zakharov v. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 4:29 am by Ron Coleman
My first involvement in litigation centered on this question was in a case called Pearson v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 10:23 am by Ron Coleman
My first involvement in such a case was in a case called Pearson v. [read post]
11 Sep 2019, 9:18 am by Adam Feldman
Heller in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 3:46 am
(Patent Infringement) District Court E D Texas: Defense wins JMOL at conclusion of plaintiff's case in Marshall patent trial: Southwest EFuel Network, LLC v Transaction Tracking Technologies, LLC (EDTexweblog.com) District Court E D Texas denies stays pending ex parte and inter partes reexam:Zapmedia Services, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
Half-day seminar on legal knowledge in a digital age, with speakers including Geoffrey Robertson QC, Hugh Tomlinson QC, Heather Brooke, Mike Dodd and Adam Wagner. [read post]
14 Oct 2021, 11:08 am by John Elwood
§ 841(a)(l) as defined in United States v. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:43 am by John Elwood
It was wham, bam, thank you Supreme Court of the United States for American Freedom Defense Initiative v. [read post]
8 Jul 2012, 1:00 pm by Ted Folkman
On the one hand, the First Circuit’s decision in Cusumano v. [read post]
18 Sep 2013, 7:28 am
John adds that Mr Brandis has stated that the new Government will wait until the post-implementation review of the ARR scheme is complete before it does anything. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 4:20 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
These facts are sufficient to state a claim for promissory estoppel.* Multimedia Patent Trust v. [read post]