Search for: "Conyers v. United States" Results 21 - 40 of 72
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jun 2017, 6:47 am by Chris Castle
It is important to understand that the United States agreed to be subject to the international treaties protecting moral rights and that these rights are different and separate from copyright. [read post]
1 Aug 2007, 5:15 am
Amici had expected the Solicitor General to accept the recommendation of the Securities and Exchange Commission that the United States file an amicus brief in support of Petitioner to urge the Court to follow the Commission’s long-standing interpretation of the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue in this case. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 9:30 pm by RegBlog
The Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in Horne v. [read post]
15 Nov 2008, 10:00 pm
  Sec. 154 states that a patent grant shall be for a term beginning on the date on which the patent issues and ending 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains certain specific references to an earlier filed application or applications, from the date on which the earliest such application was filed. [read post]
25 Nov 2009, 4:04 am by Sean Wajert
  At the very least, any legislative effort is premature, pending a study to measure the possible effects of the Iqbal and Twombly decisions that is being conducted by the Judicial Conference of the United States. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 6:36 am
You can read more about the ACLU’s work to end racial injustice in the United States at www.aclu.org/racialjustice/index.html [read post]
30 Aug 2016, 1:25 pm by Edward Blum
If the new Justice analyzes the current state of minority electoral opportunity in the United States as did Scalia, the new statute probably won’t survive constitutionality. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 5:32 pm
Supp. 51 (D.D.C. 1973) (holding that the $10,000 jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement then in the statute (it's since been eliminated) was not satisfied); United States v. [read post]
4 Feb 2018, 3:00 am by NCC Staff
On November 13, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Browder v. [read post]
31 Jul 2007, 6:05 am
The brief addressing this question, a concept known as scheme liability, was filed in support of the investors in the Stoneridge case.The brief noted that the Solicitor General rejected the SEC's specific recommendation that the United States file an amicus brief in support of investors and urge the Court to follow the Commission's long-standing interpretation of the statutory and regulatory provisions at issue. [read post]