Search for: "The PEOPLE v. Lucas" Results 41 - 60 of 265
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
(Center for History and Economics, Harvard University)Moderators: Elizabeth Lhost, Dartmouth College (elizabeth.d.lhost@dartmouth.edu) and Emma Rothschild, Harvard University (rothsch@fas.harvard.edu)Convener: Kalyani Ramnath, Harvard University (kalyaniramnath@fas.harvard.edu)Debjani Bhattacharya, Drexel University (db893@drexel.edu) South Asia 1Julia Stephens, Rutgers University (julia.stephens@rutgers.edu) South Asia 2Tatiana Seijas, Rutgers University… [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 3:55 am by Hui Zhang
Interim Judgment On March 27, 2019, the SPC IP Tribunal issued its first decision in a patent case Valeo v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm by admin
Jeffries Homes Housing Project, 306 Mich 638, 647-48; 11 NW2d 272 (1943); Grand Rapids Bd of Ed v Baczewski, 340 Mich 265, 270-71; 65 NW2d 810 (1954); Dep’t of Conservation v Connor, 316 Mich 565, 576-78; 25 NW2d 619 (1947). 9  See Chicago, Detroit, etc v Jacobs, 225 Mich 677; 196 NW 621 (1924); Michigan Air Line Ry v Barnes, 44 Mich 222; 6 NW 651 (1880); Toledo, etc R Co v Dunlap, 47 Mich 456; 11 NW 271 (1882); Detroit, etc R Co v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:13 pm by admin
Jeffries Homes Housing Project, 306 Mich 638, 647-48; 11 NW2d 272 (1943); Grand Rapids Bd of Ed v Baczewski, 340 Mich 265, 270-71; 65 NW2d 810 (1954); Dep’t of Conservation v Connor, 316 Mich 565, 576-78; 25 NW2d 619 (1947). 9  See Chicago, Detroit, etc v Jacobs, 225 Mich 677; 196 NW 621 (1924); Michigan Air Line Ry v Barnes, 44 Mich 222; 6 NW 651 (1880); Toledo, etc R Co v Dunlap, 47 Mich 456; 11 NW 271 (1882); Detroit, etc R Co v. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
He did, however, strike out the defendant’s Lucas-Box meanings on the ground that “advancing Lucas-Box meanings that are at variance with the actual meaning found by the Court is wrong in principle”. [read post]
10 Feb 2018, 5:26 am by William Ford
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Linde v. [read post]