Documents

Oral argument — Heary Bros. Lightnin v. Lightning Pro. Inst.

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 6, 2007

Your options in the light of changing circumstances throughout this whole period? Exactly. … In the record, they talk about the Lanham Act – the Lanham Act claim against East Coast and the common law unfair trade practices case was based on our claim that the 780 was a safety standard, whereas

Oral argument — Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Co. v. Ligtning Protection Institute

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 6, 2007

Your options in the light of changing circumstances throughout this whole period? Exactly. … In the record, they talk about the Lanham Act.

Oral argument — United States v. Petroff

Oral argument · Oral argument · Feb 15, 2005

Second, if the court did base it on comments about Mr. Petroff's former spouse and Mr. … Petroff's actions, his acts, and hoping to give him the maximum sentence he could.

Oral argument — Linda Larson v. Andrew Saul

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 7, 2019

Larson is receiving two retirement pensions for his work during roughly the same period. The first one is his military retired pay. … As a member of the Montana Air National Guard, a component of the United States Air Force, he's a member of a uniformed service. But he wasn't wearing that hat at his 9 to 5 civilian job.

Oral argument — Jane Sullivan v. University of Washington

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 13, 2023

The ones that we still don't know are the people who have been added since that period of time. That's the disclosure. Correct. … It is not under In re Crawford, but rather to prevent people with whom they disagree from speaking to them outside of the context of an IACUCS meeting public comment period.

Oral argument — Antonio Lozano v. Ralph M. Diaz

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 17, 2014

In that case, he fired the shots in the air. He didn't fire them at human beings. And then he also fired shots that hit the people, but it was the shots fired in the air. Right. … In Robertson, he fired into the air, not at the victims, into the air. In this case, he fired not at the victims. He fired at the car, according to his statements to police and his trial testimony.

Oral argument — Aalfs v. Wirum

Oral argument · Oral argument · Apr 17, 2007

And if he were a clean, equitable guy, I don't – I can see the logic of that. … And Straight Line Investments acted as if it were some new and different lumber and objected to the proposed borrowing. I'm missing something.

Oral argument — United States v. Evertson

Oral argument · Oral argument · Mar 16, 2009

The EPA came in, spent $421,000 cleaning up his stuff, and then the rest, as we say, is history. Obviously, the issue in this case are the jury instructions. … We also have the court, while there's no objection, the court misinstructs orally when he changes, when the judge basically takes out a comment or a before.

Oral argument — United States v. Jazzmin Dailey

Oral argument · Oral argument · Sep 9, 2019

Well, and, Your Honor, I think that there has to go through a comment period. And I'll just note that every single court that has considered the issue has said that it's not ambiguous. … They went through a comment period, and in 2008, those guidelines became effective. But if there's no ambiguity, the guideline, this part of it, is just wrong, right?

Oral argument — Anthony Moreno v. Vi-Jon, LLC

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jun 12, 2024

He just says, everybody knows hand washing is important, period, therefore reasonable consumers aren't misled by these label statements. … Well, I was trying to make a different point following up on your comment. I mean, it does say the kinds of, and I think her backup talks about types of germs that are transmissible by hand.

Oral argument — United States v. Mario Chavez-Tello

Oral argument · Oral argument · Feb 5, 2013

The strictures of the Speedy Trial Act don't apply, and Rule 11 doesn't apply, as we know from Siegel. I want to discuss briefly the government's argument about waiver. … Because this is raised for the first time on appeal, the correct standard of review is plain air. And under the plain air standard, the appellant cannot meet its burden to show prejudice.

Oral argument — Yeagley v. Wells Fargo & Compan

Oral argument · Oral argument · Feb 9, 2010

And if you look at the – there's a whole host of authority from the advisory committee comments on Rule 2003 amendments to Rule 23 which say you're supposed to look at the actual value that's provided … Congress, in enacting the Class Action Fairness Act, said the same thing, that you should look at in settlements where there is not money being provided to the class but coupons or some other types of

Oral argument — AURAFIN-OROAMERICA v. FEDERAL INS. CO.

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jun 5, 2006

freshener industry that PESCO infringed upon California Sense air freshener trade dress. … It included coverage for disparaging comments. We don't have that.

Oral argument — United States v. Henry Samueli

Oral argument · Oral argument · Sep 2, 2009

And what we're left with here is something that is air as it exists on the record here. … And if it had said we reject the sentence bargain because we don't approve sentence bargains, period, that would be a Morgan case. That would be the Morgan case, but that is not this case.

Oral argument — Everlita Basug v. Jefferson Sessions, III

Oral argument · Oral argument · Oct 9, 2018

No comment, Your Honor. I know. It's been eight years, and the Supreme Court says delay works. … Besser for any period of time, and certainly not to fulfill his expectation that he would have a younger wife that could take care of him while he was elderly and in poor health.

Oral argument — United States v. Sid Willis, Jr.

Oral argument · Oral argument · Mar 4, 2015

You haven't really answered for me Judge Acuda's question about why this isn't, even if you look at the conduct and you're on plain air review, why this, I'm not quite following you. … She gave him the mandatory minimum of 180, but to accurately reflect all of the conduct he had engaged in since his supervised release began, which was just a two-month period.

Oral argument — Shivaraman v. Ashcroft

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 7, 2003

The court simply said that an adjustment to lawful permanent resident status constitutes an admission under the Act. … But the question is whether there's a distinction between illegal and legal entry in this case and whether, therefore, you can have multiple admission periods.

Oral argument — MILLER v. XEROX

Oral argument · Oral argument · Dec 9, 2005

Just one other comment on this first issue and then I'll move on to the other issue. … The slate is wiped clean and any rights that have arisen are now forfeited. I think that provision makes no sense at all.

Oral argument — Alexander Diaz Martinez v. Jefferson Sessions

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jun 5, 2017

instead of coming clean and removing himself. … He simply, again, this was not – he didn't have it in his possession for a long period of time.

Oral argument — Stoll v. JBS USA Food Company

Oral argument · Oral argument · Dec 4, 2024

That's when Petrosky makes the comment about, oh, you know, we fired the, I fired the guy at Tolleson. … Here with the Bodie and Crawford comments, there's no indication that those were communicated to any decision maker that any decision- What about the firing of all the Canadians over a six-year period?