Search for: "State v. Carr" Results 1 - 20 of 678
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jun 2010, 11:09 am by Corey Rayburn Yung
For essentially the reasons explained by the Court of Appeals, see United States v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 8:35 am by Daily Record Staff
Appealing from the denial by the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence and Motion to Disclose Grand Jury Testimony Records, appellant, William Carr, presents three questions, which we consolidate and rephrase, for our review: 1. [read post]
12 Dec 2009, 3:38 pm by Corey Rayburn Yung
Together, Doug Berman, Wayne Logan, and I authored an amicus brief on behalf of law professors in the case of Carr v. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 11:09 am by Corey Rayburn Yung
For essentially the reasons explained by the Court of Appeals, see United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2009, 2:05 am
. ---: Brief for Petitioner Thomas Carr ---: Brief for National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner ---: Brief for Law Professors in Support of Petitioner Earlier case which will be tested: CALDER v. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 9:15 am by Daniel Hanson
On April 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Carr v. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:31 am
  Carr J stated in respect of this argument he would have concluded that the "shear variant" produced substantially the same result in the same way and obviously so as the patent states it is the preferred arrangement. [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 1:18 pm
 Following Coflexip SA v Stolt Comex Seaway MS Ltd [2001] 1 All ER 952, Carr J held that the Court has discretion to impose an injunction where it is necessary and appropriate in the circumstances. [read post]
17 Feb 2018, 7:30 am
”Henry loved when he was in "shear mode"Claim "Interpretation"  - it is all about what you say and disclaimWith the old "Construction" heading now replaced with "Interpretation", Mr Justice Carr stated he would be applying"principles concerning normal interpretation and equivalents set out by the Supreme Court in Actavis v Eli Lilly [2017] UKSC 48, [2018] and by the Patents Court in Mylan v Yeda [2017] EWHC… [read post]