Search for: "Grant v. Harris et al" Results 141 - 160 of 267
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 Apr 2013, 5:00 am by Raffaela Wakeman
Let’s start with detention, Guantanamo, habeas, and related matters: Wells shared the latest in the emergency motion “for humanitarian and life-saving relief” filed in Anam et al v. [read post]
Oct. 23, 2009)(per curiam) (opinion on denial of motion for rehearing) (limited discovery prior to arbitration sometimes permissible) IN RE HOUSTON PIPE LINE COMPANY, L.P., ET AL.; from Victoria County;13th district (13-07-00299-CV & 13-07-00362-CV, 269SW3d 90, 08-26-08). [read post]
MARGARITA CAMACHO, ET AL.; from Hidalgo County;13th district (13-05-00361-CV, 251 SW3d 88, 01-17-08)The Court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and renders judgment.Justice Phil Johnson delivered the opinion of the Court [in pdf](Justice Guzman not sitting) [read post]
27 Jan 2010, 3:00 am
Lupin Ltd. concerning LoSeasonique and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al v. [read post]
13 Jul 2007, 4:07 pm
For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM Defendant's conviction and sentence. 07a0257p.06 2007/07/10 Brown, et al v. [read post]
28 Dec 2007, 10:53 am
Paul Guardian Insurance, et al , a 12-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:Dreaded, Inc. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm by Marie Louise
Hitachi et al (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC sets new test for ‘inequitable’ patent prosecution: Therasense v Becton, Dickinson & Co (JIPLP) CAFC validity determination undone by appellant via patent reexamination? [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 11:24 pm by Marie Louise
Hitachi et al (EDTexweblog.com) CAFC sets new test for ‘inequitable’ patent prosecution: Therasense v Becton, Dickinson & Co (JIPLP) CAFC validity determination undone by appellant via patent reexamination? [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 7:00 am
" On August 16th, the same Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case of Harris County Appraisal District and Harris County Appraisal Review Board v. [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 5:43 am by Jihee Ahn
 Leung Tak Lun, et al., 944 F.2d 642 (9th Cir. 1991), but advised that its grant of authority for that particular deposition should not be considered precedent, and China has not permitted a deposition since. [read post]