Search for: "U.S. v. Pare (2 Cases)" Results 1 - 20 of 59
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Apr 2013, 9:32 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting Kahn, 441 F.3dat 988).2 In KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, the U.S. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 1:10 pm
  The court noted that in addition to being codified in Rule 10b5-2, the Second Circuit has expressly adopted the duty Corbin was charged with violating in United States v. [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 5:53 am by Dan Carvajal
There are three levels of scrutiny: (1) strict scrutiny, (2) intermediate scrutiny, and (3) rational basis. [read post]
4 May 2019, 12:39 pm by MOTP
The Houston-based appellate court did what it did based on absence of evidence of a valid acceleration of maturity of the loans--each with a 20-year amortization period.* Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2006-2 v. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 11:03 am
"By paring back the TSM test, the Court did not provide much in terms of a bright-line test, but instead gave a number of obviousness considerations that revolve around (1) predictability and (2) recognition of a benefit by one skilled in the art:• "[A] combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. [read post]
9 Jan 2018, 7:41 am by Steven Boutwell
Paring the test from 6 to 2 allows reviewing courts to “focus on the contract and the expectations of the parties. [read post]