Search for: "Shaw v. United States" Results 121 - 140 of 471
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Mar 2015, 7:35 pm by Lyle Denniston
The majority opinion in the state court, issued unsigned but in the name of the court (“per curiam”), sought to refute every argument made for same-sex marriage as a constitutional matter  and lambasted the Supreme Court for making a “moral judgment, not a legal judgment” when it struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:46 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2162, 204 L.Ed.2d 558 (2019) On June 21, 2019, by a 5-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court in Knick v. [read post]
1 Oct 2019, 3:46 pm by Glen C. Hansen
Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2162, 204 L.Ed.2d 558 (2019) On June 21, 2019, by a 5-4 vote, the United States Supreme Court in Knick v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 10:19 am by Kathy Darvil
On May 22nd, the United States Supreme Court, in Cooper v. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 9:26 am by Robert B. Milligan
Specifically, the webinar involved a discussion of non-compete and trade secret issues in Europe and China as compared to the United States. [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 4:46 am by Edith Roberts
United States, an insider trading case. [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 4:00 am
Bemis, Fuller's dance was defined  by the United States Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, Lacombe Circ. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 7:16 am
Bombardier Inc.Evidence: Disputes arose between Union Carbide Canada Inc. and Bombardier Inc. in Quebec and the United States over gas tanks on personal watercraft; Bombardier claimed the tanks, which were supplied by Union Carbide, were unfit for normal use. [read post]
12 Jun 2014, 8:43 am by John Elwood
United States and Yates v. [read post]
23 Jun 2022, 4:15 am by Florian Mueller
Cheney of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC) gave notice that the investigation of Ericsson's complaint over Apple's alleged infringement of cellular standard-essential patents (SEPs)--with Ericsson seeking a limited exclusion order against certain Apple gadgets and Apple arguing that an import ban over SEPs gives rise to an "unclean hands" defense--has been reassigned to Administrative Law Judge Bryan F. [read post]