Search for: "Colony v. Colony" Results 1761 - 1780 of 1,863
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Oct 2008, 9:36 am
Article III's presumption in favor of salary-based compensation may rule out fee-based compensation, which was a common form of judicial compensation in England and the colonies but had grown controversial by the time of the framing. [read post]
27 Sep 2008, 12:08 am
(Biotech Blog) United States: Patent for generating oxygen in a process that mimics photosynthesis (Competitive info)   Products Adderall (Dextroamphetamine/Racemic DL-ampthetamine) - US: Judge denies Sandoz’ bid for summary judgment of non infringement in patent dispute with Shir eover Adderall (Law360) Carbatrol (Carbamazepine) - US: Judge refuses to grant summary judgment to Corepharma in patent dispute with Shire Laboratories over generic Carbatrol (Law360) Clarinex… [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 6:24 pm by Mary Whisner
The American colonies and the early states prohibited sodomy as the “crime against nature,” but rarely punished such conduct if it took place behind closed doors. [read post]
5 Sep 2008, 3:16 pm
Part V concludes with reflections on the exemplary significance of the natural born citizen clause for constitutional theory.I highly recommend Sach's paper--which is very fine indeed. [read post]
29 Aug 2008, 6:23 pm
See, e.g., Smith, 744 N.E.2d at 465 (holding that equity required that Colonial Mat be held liable for the debt at issue in order to protect an innocent third party from unfairness because Colonial Mat and Colonial Industrial d/b/a Colonial Carpets were treated as if they were adjunct corporations, or mere alter egos or instrumentalities of each other that shared a common identity). [read post]
26 Jun 2008, 8:58 pm
Congress is showing interest in a bill to overturn Medtronics v. [read post]
17 May 2008, 4:45 am
The American colonies and the early states prohibited sodomy as the "crime against nature," but rarely punished such conduct if it took place behind closed doors. [read post]
27 Mar 2008, 12:44 pm
That's the title of an OpEd by GWU Law prof Jonathan Turley in yesterday's Los Angeles Times regarding Indiana v. [read post]