Search for: "Johnson v. Arnold"
Results 1 - 20
of 129
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jan 2019, 5:33 am
Criminal procedure — Illegal sentence — Merger of felony murder and predicate felonies After a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Arnold Johnson, Jr. was convicted of first-degree felony murder, attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, first-degree burglary, and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. ... [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 7:06 am
In a March 6, 2015 decision in Levien v Johnson, NYLJ 1202721296511, at *1 (Sur Ct, New York County), the New York County Surrogate’s Court enjoined the trustees of a testamentary trust from proceeding in Texas to challenge the adoptions of two adults, Parvin Johnson, Jr. and Kenneth Ives, by the grandsons of the Decedent, Arnold Levien. [read post]
28 May 2017, 8:21 pm
Dennis Crouch of the University of Missouri, Deborah Fishman of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, and Jennifer Johnson of DuPont will explore the ramifications of the April decision Helsinn v. [read post]
12 Feb 2024, 6:07 am
The Health Plan Excess Fee Case Filed Against Johnson and Johnson In Lewandowski v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 6:43 am
It is therefore insufficient: see Novartis AG v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1039, [2011] ECC 10 at [77]. [read post]
2 Jan 2012, 8:11 am
The Court of Appeals has repeatedly held that a prospective juror with actual bias, such as an opinion that the defendant is guilty, is qualified to serve on a jury as long as gives an unequivocal assurance she can be fair and impartial (People v Nicholas, 98 NY2d 749, 751 [2002]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362 [2001]; People v Johnson, 94 NY2d 600, 614 [2000]). [read post]
11 May 2012, 3:42 pm
” Johnson v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 7:28 am
DENNIS CROUCH, author of the Patently-O blog (University of Missouri), Life science litigator DEBORAH FISHMAN (Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP), and Assistant Chief IP-Counsel JENNIFER JOHNSON (DuPont). [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 12:08 pm
Arnold's Facebook post.Huff v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 2:53 pm
Arnold J was entitled to conclude, given the lack of clarity as to the molecular weight of the material in the Johnson trial, that the skilled team would not have considered it worthwhile to include the lower weight material in further testing.Yoda * Arnold J was not correct to hold that, if Yeda's patent specification made a technical effect plausible, it was not open to Mylan to mount a challenge to the existence of that effect by the use of later evidence. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 12:00 am
Arnold LJ agreed, and was fortified in his opinion by a similar ruling from the US Supreme Court in WesternGeco v Ion Geophysical. [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 8:49 am
” Fehr v. [read post]
19 Mar 2013, 6:36 pm
On March 12, 2013, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas Judge Arnold New issued a Post-Koken decision on venue in the case of Fish v. [read post]
15 Feb 2010, 6:40 am
Arnold v. [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 4:11 pm
See Johnson v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 7:13 am
The same principle has been applied to applications to amend under section 75 of the 1977 Act: see Sara Lee Household & Body Care UK v Johnson Wax Ltd [2001] FSR 17 and DataCard Corp v Eagle Technologies Ltd [2011] EWHC 244 (Pat) at [226].105. [read post]
18 Apr 2013, 3:37 am
On the facts, Arnold J decided that Resolution was not bound by privity of interest with any of the earlier parties. [read post]
9 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
ENDNOTES [1] See generally Teresa Johnson & Amy Endicott, Institutional Investors’ Role in Divers [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 7:40 pm
” If a juror’s statements during voir dire raise a doubt about his impartiality, such as statements that he has a pre-formed opinion about the case, that juror cannot be permitted to sit unless he states unequivocally that he can be fair and decide the case solely on the evidence adduced at trial (People v Johnson, 17 NY3d 752, 753 [2011]; People v Chambers, 97 NY2d 417, 419 [2002]; People v Arnold, 96 NY2d 358, 362-363 [2001]; People… [read post]
7 May 2013, 8:53 am
This was explained by Kitchin J in Novartis AG v Johnson & Johnson Medical Ltd [2009] EWHC 1671 (Pat) at [122] as follows, having cited a passage from G2/98: “I discern from this passage that the EPO considers it is permissible to afford different priority dates to different parts of a patent claim where those parts represent a limited number of clearly defined alternative subject-matters and those alternative subject-matters have been disclosed (and are enabled)… [read post]
