Search for: "Hare v State" Results 141 - 160 of 163
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2009, 7:20 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Think Tank Global Week in Review at the Subscribe page: []   Highlights this week included: US CAFC: Continuation limits invalid; limits on claims and RCEs are ok: Tafas v Doll (Patently-O) (Law360) (Hal Wegner) (IAM) (Patent Baristas) (Promote the Progress) (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (Patent Docs) (IP Spotlight) (Inventive Step) (IP Watchdog) (Washington State Patent Law Blog) (Anticipate This!) [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 2:05 am
United States, 880 F.2d 84, 86-87 (8th Cir. 1989).Kansas: Savina v. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 9:30 am
According to Joan, and to this less detailed Star-Bulletin piece, prosecutors, who had no desire to press on with charges, essentially stipulated to a ruling based in doctrines discussed in State v. [read post]
22 Sep 2008, 7:59 pm
First, a possible solution is the application of the Coase Theorem, which is well-known to lawyers through its application in United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2008, 2:00 pm
Oliveira Ardor New York Senior Broker Associate 2 Gina Berger Lower East End Realty Brokerage - Commercial / Investment Sales 2 Ariel Toledano ant propeties inc Brokerage - Residential 3 Michael Xylas Xylas & Ziccardi, LLP Real Estate Attorney 3 Tracy Mehlman Marcus and Millichap Brokerage - Residential 3 David Hale 50 State Building Advisors Executive Vice President 3 Venecia DeSilva investor 2 John Choi … [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 7:00 am
Heyman, Hate Speech, Public Discourse, and the First Amendment, (in Extreme Speech and Democracy, Ivan Hare, James Weinstein (eds.), Oxford University Press, Forthcoming).Maleiha Malik, Religious Freedom and Multiculturalism: R (Shabina Begum) V Denbigh High School, (King's Law Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2 (July 25, 2008)).From SmartCILP and elsewhere:Adam Grieser, Peter Jacques & Richard Witmer, Reconsidering Religion Policy as Violence: Lyng v. [read post]
23 Apr 2008, 9:07 am
Issue: Whether Chicago violated the Free Exercise Clause by, in efforts to expand O'Hare International Airport, seeking to amend state law to exempt religious cemeteries surrounding the airport from the Illinois Religious Freedom and Restoration Act. [read post]