Search for: "Core v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 7,776
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Dec 2021, 8:57 am
In the recent decision of Nelson (City) v. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 10:13 am
As such, claim 17 covers any devicethat performs the function recited in the claim withstructure described in the specification or its equivalents.Pennwalt Corp. v. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 2:17 am
Core Wireless’s main argument on appeal, that the patent does not require the mobile station to make the channel selection decision, was without merit (Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2009, 3:22 am
AP v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 731; [2009] WLR (D) 243 “The cumulative impact of other obligations imposed under a control order the core element of which was a 16-hour daily curfew could not provide a tipping point where, taking account of the conditions and circumstances, a curfew of 16 [...] [read post]
6 Nov 2007, 7:06 am
It is a sleeper case that will not attract much press attention but that goes to the core of economic regulation in the United States. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 2:41 am
Professors Naomi Cahn & June Carbone, on the GWU Law Review blog: At the core of the Court’s decision in Young v. [read post]
15 Oct 2009, 7:54 am
Congressman Luis V. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 12:56 pm
CORE v. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 5:53 am
State succession - a particularly thorny question undoubtedly belonging to the core of public international law - has so far not prompted much debate, but recent decisions in cases such as Sanum v Laos and World Wide Minerals v Kazakhstan is likely to change this. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 8:42 am
Bond Topple Missouri V. [read post]
26 Jun 2017, 10:48 am
See Cone v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 2:27 am
The judgments in R (Chester) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (McGeogh) v The Lord President of the Council and Another (Scotland) [2013] UKSC 63 were handed down in October 2013. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 1:02 pm
In March 2019, three Texas lawyers sued the State Bar of Texas claiming that under Janus v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 10:32 am
[Abigail] Moncrieff’s brief argues the petitioner’s interpretation of the statute would render the statute unconstitutional under two principles of federalism: that Congress can't coerce states into implementing federal programs, and that all states must be treated equally.As Koppelman notes below, the same states' rights ideas at the core of the conservative win in NFIB v. [read post]
16 Nov 2023, 4:00 am
See State v. [read post]
23 Apr 2021, 4:15 am
As the battle over the adequate forum for Ericsson v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 7:50 am
§157, stated that Stern v. [read post]
26 Feb 2013, 2:43 pm
Georgia (1831) and Worcester v. [read post]
21 Oct 2020, 2:14 pm
US v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 8:21 am
” In Clapper v. [read post]
