Search for: "Gulf States Steel Co. v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 20
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2024, 6:37 pm
-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had little justification in the internationallaw the United States claimed to be upholding, and the United States prosecuted the wars whileindifferent to the civilian casualties they imposed. [read post]
25 Oct 2022, 10:46 am by Bernard Bell
  Brief of the United States as Amicus Curiae, New York v. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 7:24 am
Its purpose is to "monitor, investigate, and submit to congress an annual report on the national security implications of the bilateral trade and economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, and to provide recommendations, where appropriate, to Congress for legislative and administrative action. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 12:11 pm by Andrew Frisch
Gulf Oil Corp., 413 F.2d 941 (5th Cir.1969) (involving oil company’s transport within Georgia of petroleum products originating from refineries in Texas and Mississippi); Opelika Royal Crown Bottling Co. v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 10:04 am by Steven M. Taber
Judge Levi issued a 2002 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the United States. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 9:54 am by smtaber
Judge Levi issued a 2002 order granting partial summary judgment in favor of the United States. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 7:09 am by PaulKostro
United States Steel Corp., 15 N.J. 301, 311 (1954)]. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 4:00 am
(Peter Zura's 271 Patent Blog) (Patently-O) (Patent Prospector) (Patent Docs) (Patent Baristas) (Intellectual Property Watch) (Law360) (BLOG@IP::JUR) (Chicago Intellectual Property Law Blog) (Patently-O) (Inventive Step) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) (Techdirt) (Hal Wegner) Reactions to Patent Reform Bill 2009 (IP Watchdog) (Patent Baristas) (IP Watchdog) (IP Watchdog) (Patently-O)    Global Global - General World IP Day, 26 April, approaching (IPKat)  … [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 2:19 pm
  The response explained the late filing of the answer by stating that, on the day the answer was due, Respondents' counsel was delayed in returning to his office from a hearing. [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 9:08 am
Charge filed by Vermont Telephone Co.; complaint alleged violation of Section 8(b)(3). [read post]