Search for: "Davis v. Texas" Results 61 - 80 of 1,041
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Mar 2012, 10:52 am by Charles Bieneman
Judge Davis distinguished the ’443 patent claims from the claim in Parker v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 12:02 pm by Lawrence Solum
Ashutosh Avinash Bhagwat (University of California, Davis - School of Law) has posted Assembly Resurrected (Texas Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. [read post]
30 May 2019, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez, an attorney holding a doctorate in history from the University of Texas, Austin, has published Treason on Trial: The United States v. [read post]
3 Oct 2008, 7:57 pm
  The Court is deciding whether to review Davis' innocence claim, which would revisit a line a cases that started with the 1993 Texas case of Herrera v. [read post]
30 May 2008, 3:32 pm
  Eric Lynn Moore is a Texas death-row inmate who in 2005 Judge Leonard Davis of Tyler ruled was mentally retarded. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
I am not saying that government owns the intellectual property rights to control the use of flag symbols—the famous Texas v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 9:59 am by Michael C. Smith
Apple, et al., 6:10cv61 (2/22/11) Judge: Leonard Davis Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue GRANTED While presiding over our trial in the Acqis v. [read post]
24 Jan 2020, 8:56 am by Kate Fort
Judges Davis and Ho were not a part of the panel. [read post]
23 Apr 2019, 9:05 am by Howard Friedman
Supreme Court heard oral arguments (transcript of oral arguments) in Fort Bend County, Texas v. [read post]
22 Mar 2018, 5:55 am by Kylee Clark
The US Supreme Court held [opinion, PDF] Wednesday in Ayestas v Davis [SCOTUSblog materials] that the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit [official website] applied the wrong standard when they denied Carlos Ayestas funding for investigative services in his habeas petition. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Supreme Court didn’t address and debunk ISL on the merits (as it later did last summer in Moore v Harper), the Court dismissed Texas’s filing on the ground that Texas lacked standing under Article III because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. [read post]