Ad
related to: in re mh 2020 004882 n 10 w 30 vr1 c
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In re A.C. is commonly lauded as a victory for women's rights, but it did not grant absolute autonomy of a woman against procedures ordered by the state. [4] Instead, it asserted that in "virtually all cases," a patient's desires must be adhered to if they are deemed competent.
The settlement provides for the cash equivalent of a 10 basis-point reduction (0.1 percent) of swipe fees charged to merchants for a period of eight months. This eight-month period would probably begin in the middle of 2013. The total value of the settlement will be about $7.25 billion.
In the legal system in the United States, In re is used to indicate that a judicial proceeding may not have formally designated adverse parties or is otherwise uncontested. In re is an alternative to the more typical adversarial form of case designation, which names each case as "Plaintiff v. (versus) Defendant", as in Roe v. Wade or Miranda v ...
Seeks an expedited declaratory judgment finding that Section 15 of the Electoral Count Act, 3 U.S.C. §§ 5 and 15 are unconstitutional because these provisions violate the Electors Clause and the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also request emergency injunctive relief required to effectuate the requested declaratory ...
In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 is a multidistrict litigation (MDL) lawsuit that seeks redress for the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks and their families. The suit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York .
United States v. Google LLC is an ongoing federal antitrust case brought by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) against Google LLC on October 20, 2020. The suit alleges that Google has violated the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 by illegally monopolizing the search engine and search advertising markets, most notably on Android devices, as well as with Apple and mobile carriers.
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (2002), is a per curiam decision by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in which it reviewed restrictions that were placed upon a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) on May 17, 2002.
In other words, the paradigm claims on appeal are not directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are not directed to subject matter within the four recognized categories of patentable inventions. Therefore, the paradigm claims, claims 24-35, are not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for at least this reason.