Search for: "SMITH v. DE NOVO LEGAL, LLC"
Results 1 - 20
of 31
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 May 2022, 2:43 pm
Cir. 2016) (“We review the Board’s legal conclusion of obviousness de novo, and underlying factual findings for substantial evidence. [read post]
24 Mar 2021, 2:32 pm
We review the Board’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 1:39 pm
SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 765–66 (2011); see Commil USA, LLC v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 6:21 am
” The trial court granted Wife’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees, holding “Wife had no choice but to initiate legal action to force Husband’s compliance with the Permanent Order. [read post]
24 May 2019, 3:01 pm
Smith, Karolyne Garner, for Terry Carter, Respondent. [read post]
9 Oct 2018, 5:02 am
Henry v. [read post]
1 Sep 2018, 9:28 am
Whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable is subject to de novo review. [read post]
1 Jul 2018, 8:35 am
CWCapital Asset Management LLC v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 5:27 pm
The Smiths timely appealed.IIReviewing subject-matter jurisdiction de novo, Gasch v. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 3:08 pm
The oral argument thus renewed the mystery of why the Court granted certiorari in the first place--especially after it had denied the petition in Elane Photography, LLC v. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:33 pm
CASH BIZ, LP,CASH ZONE, LLC D/B/A CASH BIZ AND REDWOOD FINANCIALS, LLC PANEL MAJORITY OPINION BY THE COURT OF APPEALS BELOWWITH DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE MARTINEZ CASH BIZ, LP, Redwood Financial, LLC, Cash Zone, LLC dba Cash Biz, Appellants,v.Hiawatha HENRY, Addie Harris, Montray Norris, and Roosevelt Coleman Jr., et al., Appellees.No. 04-15-00469-CV.Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio.Delivered and Filed: July 27, 2016.Philip A.… [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 6:49 am
PARKER, Appellants,v.INTERACTIVE BROKERS LLC, Appellee. [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 7:00 am
See generally Opposition Brief of Defendants-Appellees Pfizer Inc., Pfizer International LLC, and Greenstone LLC [cited as Pfizer]. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 4:28 am
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KENNETH E. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 9:58 am
The difference in question presented is interesting: Dow: Whether factual findings underlying a district court’s determination on the definiteness of a patent claim under the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. 112, like a district court’s factual findings underlying construction of a patent claim, are subject to appellate review only for clear error or substantial evidence rather than de novo review. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 8:12 am
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 15-375, which concerns the standard for prevailing parties to obtain attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act; Encino Motorcars, LLC v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 7:17 am
(Smith v. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 9:20 am
” Smith v. [read post]
19 Feb 2015, 10:04 am
Vicki became his legal guardian, and he continued to live at home with her. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 2:00 pm
Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee and PLIVA, Inc. v. [read post]
