Search for: "Metts v. Metts" Results 1 - 20 of 25
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 Oct 2016, 10:53 am by John Floyd
  Previously Participated as Counsel for the State   Article 30.01 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and Article V, Section 11, of the Texas Constitution both require the disqualification of a judge “who has previously participated as counsel for the State in a pending matter. [read post]
19 Mar 2021, 7:46 am
Rumsfeld: social movements and the construction of ecological security Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, What kills international organisations? [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 6:17 am by Alfred Brophy
Metts for that matter (though maybe the majority doesn't need as much rewriting)! [read post]
20 Feb 2016, 8:19 am by Alfred Brophy
Metts -- in which Amasa Coleman Lee figured prominently. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 6:19 pm by Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton
  Members (sorted by last name) include: Flemming Cassee (deputy Eugenia Valsami-Jones), NSC (EU); Emeric Frejafon, Institut national de l’environnement industriel et des risques (France); Monique Groenewold (deputy Eric Bleeker), National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) (The Netherlands); Elisabeth Heunisch, Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) (Germany); Jenny Holmqvist (deputy Celia Tanarro), ECHA (EU); Anke Jesse, Federal Ministry for the… [read post]
7 Jan 2019, 9:19 am
| The IP term (thus far) of the millennium: the curious story of the adoption of "patent troll" and "internet trolling" | No pain, no gain: Plausibility in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Testing the boundaries of subjectivity: Infringement of Swiss-type claims in Warner-Lambert v Actavis | Is SPINNING generic? [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 4:08 pm by admin
When expert witnesses rely upon one or a few studies, which telegraph internal validity, this litigation strategy may provide the strongest evidence against the study’s being reasonably relied upon, or its providing “sufficient facts and data” to support an admissible expert witness opinion. [1] Daubert v. [read post]