Search for: "In re Steven F." Results 41 - 60 of 734
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Feb 2011, 4:50 pm by Christine Dowling
Kentucky death row inmate Ralph Steven Baze (from Baze v. [read post]
4 Nov 2008, 5:31 pm
Justices Souter and Stevens  were noticeably ambivalent. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
At The Economist, Steven Mazie discusses Wednesday’s argument in Endrew F. v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 8:46 am by Marvin Ammori
Countries could sign a protocol making them subject to arbitration on ITU matters--but the US has refused to sign on, meaning we're not subject to it. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 3:39 am
See, e.g., Jenkins, 447 U.S. at 243-44, 100 S.Ct. 2124 (Stevens, J., concurring) ("When a citizen is under no official compulsion whatever, either to speak or to remain silent, I see no reason why his voluntary decision to do one or the other should raise any issue under the Fifth Amendment. [read post]
28 Mar 2018, 6:43 pm by Chris Castle
If you’re not familiar with the “mass NOI” problem, here’s the explanation in a nutshell:  two factors collide to create massive confusion. [read post]
19 Aug 2008, 3:38 pm
[Davis' first appeal ended in a remand for re-sentencing. 397 F.3d 340 (6th Cir. 2005).] [read post]
13 Jul 2017, 11:50 pm
Alvarez & Benedict Kingsbury, AJIL AT 111 Articles Steven R. [read post]
30 Dec 2018, 6:08 am by Dennis Crouch
  The decision here falls in line with In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816 (Fed. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 12:04 pm
When you're presented with this much discussion, readers everywhere are bound to find something they'd want to subscribe to. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 9:33 am
In which case, (points to posterioer) or (reaches into robe, honks breast) would be considered entirely (does that thing where you make a V you're your index and middle finger and lewdly stick your tongue through it...you know the one).Justice Stevens: I don't know what the fuck you people are talking about. [read post]
15 Oct 2019, 3:19 am
Finding that the purported word+design mark shown below is "merely an ornamental or informational feature" of Applicant Steven Schalk's "bumper stickers," the Board affirmed a failure-to-function refusal under Sections 1, 2, and 45 of the Trademark Act. [read post]