Search for: "IN RE AMENDMENT OF RULE 6-9(b)(5) OF THE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT AND COURT OF APPEALS"
Results 1 - 20
of 336
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Nov 2009, 8:38 pm
P. 9.146(g)(4)(B). 11 In re Amendments, No. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 2:56 pm
On Thursday, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled in Stern v. [read post]
1 Jun 2006, 6:15 am
X(6)(B)(3) and(5)(A)(4). [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 2:56 pm
On Thursday, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled in Stern v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 10:32 am
Manifestly, the CAFC decision in In re Lovin is about Rule 41.37 :In sum, we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 7:59 am
, 690 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex. 1985); see In re Z.J.W. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 10:29 pm
While rule 27.3 contemplates the trial court's ability to modify or amend orders that have been appealed, neither the December 12, 2012 Order nor the May 1, 2013 Order modified or amended the trial court's November 12, 2012 Order. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 10:29 pm
While rule 27.3 contemplates the trial court's ability to modify or amend orders that have been appealed, neither the December 12, 2012 Order nor the May 1, 2013 Order modified or amended the trial court's November 12, 2012 Order. [read post]
21 Jun 2010, 7:35 am
(In re Robbins, supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 788, fn. 9; In re Clark, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 767-768; In re Horowitz (1949) 33 Cal.2d 534, 546-547.) [read post]
8 Oct 2020, 10:20 am
” Slip op. at 9. [read post]
22 Feb 2024, 7:28 am
” Id. at 5. [read post]
7 Aug 2019, 2:04 pm
Continuing our new practice of posting North Carolina appellate court case summaries to the blog, this post provides summaries of the North Carolina Court of Appeals opinions published on August 6, 2019. [read post]
7 Aug 2008, 9:21 pm
The Nevada Supreme Court will hear public comment on October 6. [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 8:26 pm
Const. amend. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
The petitioner appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court, which denied review without providing any reasons for the denial. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 7:15 am
” Id. at 9. [read post]
7 Jul 2021, 9:52 am
G.S. 7B-2101(b). [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 6:37 pm
Section 16."); 9 U.S.C. [read post]
25 Feb 2013, 6:37 pm
Section 16."); 9 U.S.C. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 1:06 pm
At least 19 district court decisions[6] accepted the argument, holding that installation and monitoring of the NIT software was authorized by the tracking warrant provisions of Rule 41(b)(4) and 18 U.S.C. 3117. [read post]
