Search for: "Alexander v. State" Results 181 - 200 of 1,779
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Aug 2019, 12:43 am
PatentsIn Takeda v Roche: "Is it plausible? [read post]
29 Jul 2019, 6:00 am by Quinta Jurecic
The Constitution states that members of Congress—along with every state legislative official and every judicial and executive official of both the state and federal governments—“shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. [read post]
26 Jul 2019, 11:18 am
The first  was on The State of Creativity: The Future of 3D Printing, 4D Printing and Augmented Reality. [read post]
25 Jul 2019, 1:17 pm by Lyle Denniston
It examined that related issue three years ago, but the ruling in the case of Evenwel v. [read post]
19 Jul 2019, 8:16 am by Ingrid Wuerth
A 1781 Pennsylvania state court case against the state of Virginia, Nathan v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 7:44 am by Julie Brook, Esq.
Be careful with this, these recent cases found the expert declarations insufficient: Fernandez v Alexander (2019) 31 CA5th 770, 781–782 (physician didn’t explain or provide factual support for his causation opinion); Willhide-Michiulis v Mammoth Mt. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 7:44 am by Julie Brook, Esq.
Be careful with this, these recent cases found the expert declarations insufficient: Fernandez v Alexander (2019) 31 CA5th 770, 781–782 (physician didn’t explain or provide factual support for his causation opinion); Willhide-Michiulis v Mammoth Mt. [read post]
29 Jun 2019, 7:36 am by Sandy Levinson
  There are many reasons for the cultural power of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s depiction of Alexander Hamilton and his compatriots. [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 11:32 am by Justin Riemer
Justin Riemer is Chief Counsel of the Republican National Committee, which filed an amicus brief in support of the state in Rucho v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 7:56 am by Russell Spivak, Benjamin Wittes
Code, entitled “Assistance to foreign and international tribunals and to litigants before such tribunals,” is, in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words in Intel v. [read post]