Search for: "Amin v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 84
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2021, 1:11 pm
Mahendra Amin allegedly took this unnecessary, aggressive, and irreversible step to treat minor health concerns that could be addressed with far less invasive procedures. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
Thermo-Ply (PATracer) Honeywell – Patentee appeals finding of patent invalidity under on-sale bar provisions of § 102(b): Honeywell v Nikon (PATracer) Nalco – Nalco appeals from grant of preliminary injunction against it from infringement patent directed to method of removing or transferring metals and/or amines from crude oil: Baker Hughes v Nalco (PATracer) Nutriset - Access to food now an IP issue? [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 8:27 am
Amin, 106 ITR 368, CIT v. [read post]
18 Sep 2008, 8:56 pm
United States, ex rel. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 5:42 am
For an interesting recent case dealing with this question, see AFDI v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 9:49 am
These were most famously set out by Lord Bingham in by the House of Lords in R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC HL [at 31]: The purposes of such an investigation are clear: to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if justified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and… [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 9:59 pm
And maybe he is.But it was John Roberts, no fan of my clients, who wrote this a couple of years ago in United States v. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 6:29 pm
The program will also include a panel of IP experts such as Tara Rosnell and Christopher V. [read post]
22 Nov 2009, 3:06 pm
The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal addressed the issue of pre-emptive strikes in United States v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
United States, 597 F. [read post]
3 Sep 2011, 11:01 am
On the other hand, “a disclaimer should not remove more than is necessary […] to restore novelty […]” (see G 1/03 [headnote 2.2] and [3]).[5.5.1] The second paragraph of G 1/03 [3] states“However, the only justification for the disclaimer is to exclude a novelty-destroying disclosure […]. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 12:15 pm
Bard, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 2:00 am
However, the Department of Labor (DOL) has endorsed the following nonexhaustive, seven-factor “Primary Beneficiary Test,” which was established by the 2nd Circuit in Glatt v. [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 11:06 pm
As Lord Bingham put it in R (Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] 1 AC, HL [31] The purposes of such an investigation are clear: to ensure so far as possible that the full facts are brought to light; that culpable and discreditable conduct is exposed and brought to public notice; that suspicion of deliberate wrongdoing (if unjustified) is allayed; that dangerous practices and procedures are rectified; and that those who have lost their relative may at… [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 9:01 am
DepositionsKF8901 .B63 2001Developing deposition skills : Polisi v. [read post]
7 Oct 2009, 5:12 am
Plaintiff Khairul Amin was suspended after he was arrested for and charged with Menacing in the 2nd Degree, with a Weapon, and Assault with Intent to Cause Physical Injury, 3rd Degree. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 6:00 am
Mahendra Amin as the doctor who allegedly performed the hysterectomies. [read post]
1 Sep 2023, 8:08 am
Burkel, et al., for the CDC v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons,” 384 New Engl. [read post]
28 Nov 2021, 11:59 pm
In Amin v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 3:13 pm
., v. [read post]
