Search for: "United States v. W. T. Grant Co." Results 21 - 40 of 657
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2013, 7:59 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment that: (1) OWW was collaterally estopped from challenging the invalidity of claims 1, 2, 4, 15, 16, and 20 of the ’237 patent; (2) claims 18, 19, 21, 22, and 23 of the ’237 patent were invalid for obviousness; and (3) Alps failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact with respect to inequitable conduct. [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 6:33 am
 In granting that motion, the United States District Court held:[T]he Court finds that the Policy unambiguously bars any and all suits commenced more than two years after the date of the damage or loss. [read post]
21 Jun 2023, 1:15 pm by NARF
United States (Federal Tort Claims Act; Sovereign Immunity) United States v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Beck, et al.
Pa. 1985) (can’t tell what state’s law); Seiden v. [read post]
28 Jan 2024, 8:49 pm by Marty Lederman
§ 2383, which provides that “[w]hoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto … shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Accordingly, said the court, this case was governed by the rule of New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as embodying "the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public… [read post]
2 Aug 2010, 7:53 am
Co. (3rd Dept., decided 7/22/2010) I rarely post here about cases involving default judgment motions against insurers because those cases don't usually involve substantive issues of insurance coverage law. [read post]