Search for: "John v. Duffy" Results 81 - 100 of 214
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Feb 2012, 1:34 pm by Daniel E. Cummins
I send thanks to the prevailing defense counsel for Erie Insurance, John A. [read post]
25 Mar 2018, 11:04 am by Dennis Crouch
(Arti Rai, Todd Rakoff, Kali Murray, Scott Kieff)  Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. [read post]
10 Jul 2014, 11:35 am by Tom
  One of my old professors John Duffy finds another media analogy:  “Towards the end of the [classic 1965 movie The Battle of the Bulge], the German panzer colonel believes he has succeeded in breaking through the Allied lines, and he exalts: ‘We have done it! [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 7:31 am
Circuit Court Group 15 Runoff Barbara Duffy v Miami Dade ASA Abbe Rifkin356,839 .................................. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 7:45 am by Dennis Crouch
John Duffy and Richard Hynes, Statutory Interpretation and the Exhaustion Issues in Lexmark v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 4:57 am by Amy Howe
Coca-Cola Co., holding that POM can bring a Lanham Act claim challenging food and beverage labels regulated under the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, continues to generate coverage, including from John Duffy for this blog, David Savage of the Los Angeles Times, and Michael Bobelian of Forbes. [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 10:51 am
Two years ago, my frequent coauthor John Duffy (writing solo) argued that panels of the Board including judges appointed after March 29, 2000, were unconstitutionally constituted. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 10:46 am by Daniel E. Cummins
”The prevailing defense attorney in this matter was Attorney John Statler of the Lemoyne, Pennsylvania law firm of Johnson, Duffy, Stewart & Weidner.Any one desiring a copy of this Order may contact me at dancummins@comcast.netAnother Philadelphia County DecisionPhiladelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alan L. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 7:10 am by Jason Rantanen
All parties agreed, as did the panel (citing Professor John Duffy’s prominent 2007 Patently-O paper), that APJs are officers within the meaning of the Appointments Clause. [read post]