Search for: "US v. Atkins" Results 161 - 180 of 520
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Apr 2016, 5:21 am by John Elwood
Florida and Atkins v. [read post]
25 Apr 2016, 7:00 am
He and his lawyers didn’t have a chance to present evidence of his intellectual disability until more than 20 years later, when the Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. [read post]
21 Apr 2016, 8:00 pm by John Ehrett
Florida and Atkins v. [read post]
20 Apr 2016, 7:53 pm by Ron Coleman
On Jan. 12, Western District Judge Ricardo Martinez refused to dismiss such claims plaintiff brought in Microsoft Corp. v. [read post]
Cape Flattery Earlier this month my colleague Dan Harris used an excellent post from Mike Atkins’ Seattle Trademark Lawyer blog on the basics of trademark protection in the US as the basis for his own blog post commenting on the differences between U.S. and Chinese trademark law. [read post]
In the Ninth Circuit, it is known as the “Sleekcraft” factors, after the influential trademark infringement case of AMF Inc. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2015, 3:46 am by INFORRM
The respondents pointed out that in AAA v Associated Newspapers  and Weller v Associated Newspapers; children have been awarded damages despite being oblivious to their privacy rights being violated. [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 8:00 pm by John Ehrett
Texas 15-65Issue: Whether Texas’s standard for determining if a capital defendant meets the second prong of the definition of intellectual disability (“deficits in adaptive functioning”) violates the Eighth Amendment in light of Atkins v. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 10:12 am by Ron Coleman
Republished by Blog Post Promoter(Email exchange off the INTA email list reprinted here with Mike Atkins’s permission;) From: Atkins, Michael G. [read post]
28 Oct 2015, 3:32 am
The undersigned agrees with Magistrate Judge Atkins' conclusion regarding this issue.U.S. v. [read post]
6 Sep 2015, 7:34 am by Howard Friedman
Linderman, (9th Cir., Sept. 3, 2015), the 9th Circuit affirmed an Arizona district court's dismissal of complaints by an inmate that he was denied a private worship area and ceremonial foods and was not allowed to use an open flame during certain religious ceremonies.In Atkins v. [read post]