Search for: "United States v. Henry" Results 321 - 340 of 1,113
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Oct 2018, 8:00 am by Guest Blogger
Magliocca makes a good case for why such appeals to fixity were likely unavoidable in the United States. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 3:50 am by Edith Roberts
” At Crime & Consequences, Kent Scheidegger observes that United States v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 4:04 am by Edith Roberts
In Henry Schein, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2018, 1:02 pm by Dennis Crouch
We must be clear, lest we perpetuate the current state. [read post]
21 Sep 2018, 8:46 am by Michelle N. Meyer
Companies in the United States and Europe are expected to begin treating patients with CRISPR-based therapies this year. [read post]
7 Sep 2018, 10:12 am by Hannah Catt
He used a case study from one of his successful cases, Oklahoma Genetics Inc. v. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 10:54 am by Kent Scheidegger
There is an ineffective assistance case where trial counsel did not introduce expert testimony of battered woman syndrome in a case where duress was the defense, United States v. [read post]
27 Aug 2018, 10:53 am by Rory Little
Of particular note, he expressed misgivings in Henry, and then again in 2008 (United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2018, 11:54 pm by Steve Lubet
In the AAUP, we encounter such violations, petty and large, on a daily basis in the United States. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 1:51 pm by Adam Feldman
Several patent-related cases, Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
31 Jul 2018, 10:40 am by Kevin Kaufman
Increasingly, however, the state is struggling. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 9:30 pm by Bobby Chen
WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK The United States and the EU are diverging in their approaches to antitrust enforcement, wrote Henry Farrell of the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, in an article for The Monkey Cage. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 8:04 am by Steven Cohen
United States District Court – Eastern District of Missouri – January 9th, 2018) involves a dispute over a contract interpretation. [read post]