Search for: "State v. Duffy" Results 181 - 200 of 346
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Dec 2019, 4:05 am by Edith Roberts
John Duffy analyzes Monday’s second argument, in Thryv v. [read post]
1 Nov 2019, 12:30 pm by Jason Rantanen
Duffy, Are Administrative Patent Judges Unconstitutional? [read post]
4 May 2010, 3:00 pm by Matt Sundquist
Raich (21:07), in which the Court affirmed that the “Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail”; and McIntyre v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 6:38 am by MBettman
At issue in this case is whether the Supreme Court of Ohio should update and clarify its attorney fee jurisprudence by adopting the United States Supreme Court’s guidance in Perdue v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 5:22 am by SHG
By 5-4 decision, the Supreme yesterday put an end to consumer class actions in AT&T v. [read post]
9 Dec 2019, 3:50 am by Edith Roberts
This blog’s preview came from John Duffy. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 10:38 am by Allison Tussey
United States Attorney Duffy added, “As our economy slowly improves, it is important for us to address criminal conduct that helped spawn the financial crisis. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 2:19 pm by Rantanen
  At the first conference, coming up in just two weeks, I'll be speaking about inequitable conduct in the wake of Therasense v. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 10:00 pm
Duffy (1987) 200 Cal.App.3d 730, 753-754 [upholding attorney fee award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5 that included compensation for "109 minutes of computer research and 309.7 hours of work by three attorneys"]; and Trustees of Const. v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 8:10 am by McNabb Associates, P.C.
Duffy announced the unsealing of an indictment today charging a local real estate agent, Eric Elegado, and eight other mortgage industry professionals—Charmagne Elegado, Theodore Cohen, Minh Nguyen, Regidor Pacal, Alexander V. [read post]
5 May 2011, 8:50 pm by TDot
1 If you want to read through the fact pattern that was used in this case, check out State v. [read post]