Search for: "United States v. Smith" Results 141 - 160 of 3,636
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Feb 2009, 10:50 am
Judge Milan Smith has a fairly good quote in this regard that's both accurate and worth repeating: "Even at a time when the largest law firms in the United States were composed of not many more than one hundred lawyers, Judge Friendly observed that we live in an 'age of increased specialization and high mobility of the bar.' Spanos v. [read post]
30 Sep 2014, 10:25 am
Back in August, the Third Circuit handed down an unpublished opinion in United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 11:13 pm by Andrew & Danielle Mayoras
Can the Anna Nicole Smith Estate be lucky enough to revive her case in the United States Supreme Court twice? [read post]
18 Nov 2019, 10:31 am by Dennis Crouch
The basic framework is that the Constitution requires all “Officers of the United States” to be nominated by the President with “Consent of the Senate. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 7:19 am
By Anil Kalhan It may be tempting to regard the Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision last week in United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 8:17 am by Gene Quinn
On Monday, June 25, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted cert. in Helsinn Healthcare S.A., v. [read post]
20 Aug 2012, 3:49 am by Debra A. McCurdy
Reed Smith's Global Regulatory Enforcement Law Blog recently featured a post on the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in United States ex rel. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 7:05 am by IPWatchdog
United States Postal Service, a case that asks the nation’s highest court to determine whether the federal government constitutes a “person” for the purposes of instituting review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 8:51 pm by Jane Chong
Ct. 2473 (2014) changes the precedential effect of Smith v. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 8:54 am by WIMS
Nick Smith challenges the United States Department of Agriculture's determination that Smith had converted 2.24 acres of wetland on his property and that he is, consequently, totally ineligible for program benefits. [read post]