Search for: "Rand v. United States" Results 181 - 200 of 284
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2018, 5:42 am by Anthony Gaughan
United States, "[N]ever before has the United States sought to enjoin a newspaper from publishing information in its possession. [read post]
23 Dec 2020, 7:41 pm by Josh Blackman
Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
As I explained in an earlier Verdict column, under the most natural reading of both the text of the Fourteenth Amendment and the leading case construing it—the 1898 ruling in United States v. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 2:04 pm by Kevin
It is possible, l suppose, to ìmagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 10:57 am by Tara Hofbauer
Wells posted the government’s latest en-banc rehearing petition in Al-Bahlul v. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 12:40 pm by Florian Mueller
Last summer both Apple and Google's Motorola appealed Judge Posner's June 2012 dismissal of a two-way Apple v. [read post]
28 Oct 2012, 9:19 am by Florian Mueller
But Motorola doesn't want this to happen in the United States, and especially not in a way that takes care of the FRAND licensing question on a worldwide basis.Motorola's Wisconsin motion wasn't sealed, but Apple's response, filed on Friday at Judge Crabb's request, is inaccessible to the public. [read post]
31 May 2022, 8:31 am by jonathanturley
Support for this claim could be based on a  2019 study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery that found that “Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004”. [read post]
16 Aug 2017, 9:30 pm by Mark Nevitt
President Donald Trump recently tweeted that the United States “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military” because American forces “must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory. [read post]
5 Apr 2007, 6:02 pm
  The Complaint Counsel argued that this “evidentiary gap” could be closed because “Rambus would not have issued the commitment to license on RAND [Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory] terms required by JEDEC and EIA regulations,” pointing “to evidence that show[ed] that Rambus did not want to license technology on RAND terms and that it even made statements that offering RAND terms was contrary to its business… [read post]
15 Jun 2010, 7:50 pm
(IAM)   United Kingdom Coexistence and the Omega saga: Omega Engineering Inc v Omega SA and others (IPKat) When picking a vaccum cleaner design, watch for the sucker punch... [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 5:36 pm by davidruiz
Section 702 allows the NSA to collect the communications of foreign individuals not living in the United States. [read post]
18 May 2013, 5:30 am by Barry Sookman
Yahoo -> Computer and Internet Law Weekly Updates for 2013-05-12 | Barry Sookman -> F/RAND and SEPs: the EU Commission objects to Motorola's conduct -> Look who’s Pirating now! [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 5:21 pm by Joe Mullin
Schreiner said the Court had “launched the United States Patent System into the Information Age with the Bilski v. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 10:12 am by Tara Hofbauer
Wells provided dispatches from yesterday’s hearing in United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2016, 1:45 pm by Eugene Volokh
Likewise, 28% of online adults in the United States use LinkedIn, another website covered by § 14-202.5. [read post]
6 Jul 2013, 12:39 pm by Florian Mueller
In my previous post I published the dissenting views of Commissioner Pinkert, one of the six chiefs of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC), from the majority decision granting Samsung (unless vetoed by the United States Trade Representative or reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) an exclusion order against older iPhones and iPads. [read post]