Search for: "Clemente v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 457
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Apr 2012, 1:20 pm by Matthew Kolken
Paul Clement represented Arizona, and Solicitor General Donald Verrilli represented the United States. [read post]
21 Apr 2012, 6:43 am by immigrationprof
United States and the constitutionality of the Arisona immigration enforcement law known as S.B. 1070. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 10:16 am by jleaming@acslaw.org
As the nation increasingly embraces the constitutional amendment solution to Citizens United v. [read post]
14 May 2008, 1:20 pm
I will miss not only Paul's superb advocacy on behalf of the United States, but also his wise counsel and keen legal analysis. [read post]
11 Apr 2018, 4:15 am by Gene Quinn
In this case one of the Administrative Patent Judges hearing the case at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) was APJ Matt Clemens, who previously represented Apple as a defense attorney in patent infringement matters prior to joining the board... [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 9:39 am by jleaming@acslaw.org
” Paul Clement answered no, frankly claiming for the states the powers of deportation and border control. [read post]
22 May 2018, 10:16 am by Andrew Hamm
Kagan told the story of the first appellate argument in her life – none other than the reargument in Citizens United v. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 2:44 pm by Amy Howe
United States, the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s aggressive efforts to reduce the number of illegal immigrants in that state. [read post]
29 Oct 2007, 9:01 pm
At 10 a.m, the Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 9:58 pm by Patent Docs
Sanofi, all three advocates (Jeff Lamken for Amgen, Paul Clement for Sanofi, and Colleen Sindzak for the United States) had reason to reference and discuss an amicus brief submitted on behalf of Nobel Prize-winning scientist Sir Gregory Winter and colleagues,* on the scientific questions raised in the case with regard to what is sufficient to satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. [read post]
30 Oct 2007, 2:17 am
At 10 a.m today, the United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in United States v. [read post]
6 Oct 2014, 6:00 am by Trevor Cutaiar
Judge Clement first analyzed and concluded that United States Supreme Court jurisprudence does not require punitive damages in unseaworthiness cases. [read post]
17 Mar 2012, 3:32 pm by Andrew Koppelman
” (15) But the brief also has so many citations to United States v. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 9:01 pm
Clement will argue for the United States as amicus curiae. [read post]