Sentences with phrase «federal appellate court panels»

Do you believe that federal appellate court panels should be able to designate some of their rulings as «non-precedential» upon issuance, or should the precedential value of an opinion be left to later panels to determine; and why?

Where do you stand on the question of allowing citation to «unpublished» opinions; do you believe that federal appellate court panels should be able to designate some of their rulings as «non-precedential» upon issuance, or should the precedential value of an opinion be left to later panels to determine; and why?

Not exact matches

The federal appellate panel in Manhattan questioned whether Silver's misdeeds qualify as public corruption since the Supreme Court unanimously held that in accepting $ 175,000 in luxury gifts, McDonnell had given little more in return than setting up a few meetings and phone calls.

A reissued decision in the Topeka, Kan., school - desegregation suit gives a more detailed picture of a federal appellate panel's deep division over the need for continued court supervision in the historic case.

The game makers are wrong to argue that the Federal Circuit should rehear the case because the appellate court panel allegedly created a «safe harbor» for technological ideas, as the court simply followed precedent for abstract claims as set by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not eligible for a patent, asserted McRO Inc. in its bcourt panel allegedly created a «safe harbor» for technological ideas, as the court simply followed precedent for abstract claims as set by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not eligible for a patent, asserted McRO Inc. in its bcourt simply followed precedent for abstract claims as set by Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not eligible for a patent, asserted McRO Inc. in its bCourt decision that held that abstract ideas implemented using a computer are not eligible for a patent, asserted McRO Inc. in its brief.

In the U.S. Federal appellate courts, and maybe all of the state appellate courts, they have a procedure (as I understand it) by which a judge of the appellate court who wasn't on the hearing panel can request the full court reconsider the decision.

Rather, it merely proves that the different regional federal appellate courts follow somewhat different rules governing the order in which the judges on the three - judge panel that decided the case are listed on an opinion.

Our experienced appellate attorneys have represented clients in appeals filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (for bankruptcy appeals), various state Courts of Appeals, including Georgia, Maryland, and Illinois; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, United States Court of Federal Claims and the U.S. Supreme Court.

We represents businesses before state and federal courts, juries and judges, arbitration panels and state and federal administrative agencies, and United States Courts of Appeals, state appellate courts and administrative appeals bcourts, juries and judges, arbitration panels and state and federal administrative agencies, and United States Courts of Appeals, state appellate courts and administrative appeals bCourts of Appeals, state appellate courts and administrative appeals bcourts and administrative appeals boards.

He represents clients before state and federal courts, appellate courts, and arbitration panels throughout the country.

Mr. Neal has a broad range of experience handling contract, business and other tort, fraud, RICO, computer crimes / unlawful surveillance, FTC enforcement, investigations, employment, intellectual property, fee petitions, and administrative actions before state and federal trial and appellate courts and arbitration panels.

He frequently litigates business disputes and issues relating to supply network and distribution matters, as well as disputes involving contracts, business torts, trade secrets, trade dress, covenants not to compete, and enforcement of intellectual property rights before state and federal trial and appellate courts, including arbitration panels.

In the course of his litigation practice, Gary has represented individuals, stockholders, and private and public corporations before federal and state trial courts, appellate courts, arbitration panels, and alternative dispute forums throughout Massachusetts and New England.

With years of trial experience, the Firm's lawyers are able to simplify and effectively convey the nuances of complex business disputes to state and federal court judges and juries, arbitration panels, administrative hearing officers, and in various appellate forums throughout the country.

The Court of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review is an appellate court, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedencourt, and like other Article III appellate courts, it has the power to bind both lower courts (in this case, the FISC) and later Court of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review panels.22 The Court of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review probably has the same discretion as federal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedfederal courts of appeals to designate opinions as precedential and non-precedential; at least, no statutory provision declares otherwise.23 The two public Court of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions are published in redacted form in the Federal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedFederal Reporter.24 As with the published case of the FISC sitting en banc, these published Court of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review cases are certainly precedential.25 We do not know the volume, if any, of secret non-precedential Court of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions, or whether there are non-public Court of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedenCourt of Review opinions that are nonetheless treated as precedential.

Our D.C. - based Appellate, Constitutional & Administrative Law practice represents clients in appeals before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal and state appellate courts, government agencies, and national and international arbitration panels.