Documents

Oral argument — Cook v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Mar 4, 2010

Well, that's what I was trying to get at, is to have you take me through the acts, the acts of the breach. … And during that time period, the reason why plaintiffs couldn't...

Oral argument — Confederated Tribes v. HHS

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jul 6, 2009

Congress was entitled to assume that it meant that period and no more. … The Fair Labor Standards Act, the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, both of those acts say, no, we're not going to do Rule 23 class actions in the usual way.

Oral argument — Oplinger v. DHS

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 4, 2016

That there was a different deciding official, a different time period. … There were details about whether he cleaned the gun. We read the record. Yes, a rifle. Yes, thank you.

Oral argument — KATZ-PUESCHEL v. TRANSPORTATION

Oral argument · Oral argument · Dec 9, 2011

Back pay is, as the court knows, a term of art provided for by the Back Pay Act, which allows somebody in Ms. … They've said that since the air traffic control strikes.

Oral argument — Viraj Profiles Limited v. ITC

Oral argument · Oral argument · Sep 7, 2017

The person there has acted somewhere contrary to law. Well, what do you think the ITC should have done? … When I've been involved in default cases in district courts and trial courts, they start clean. It doesn't matter what happened. They do what they did in Dow.

Oral argument — LaGloria Oil v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jun 6, 2007

If you have one concluding comment that you would like to make, we will give you back your couple of minutes of rebuttal time. If I could save a couple of minutes for rebuttal. … We actually offered to sell fuel to, say, Tinker Air Force Base in 1994. Pick your year. And in that year, however, in that particular solicitation, DESC set aside 10%.

Oral argument — Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.

Oral argument · Oral argument · Apr 8, 2016

Thus, nothing could have been washed clean. There was nothing there to wash clean. They didn't even consider it later on. … So there was nothing to wash clean. There was no washing, simply no washing, clean or otherwise. Mr. Franklin, this characterized what I said before.

Oral argument — Pipes v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jul 9, 2024

One of which is a commander during the relevant period of time, up until 2005. … The Air Force flies by the rules, right? Yes, Your Honor.

Oral argument — Labare v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · May 8, 2007

Groff and the State of California that makes his acts not the acts of the State of California but the acts of his employer, San Joaquin Helicopters. Mr. … Notice and comment is there for a reason.

Oral argument — Northrop Grumman v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jun 6, 2008

Did you have any communication, if you remember, in this pre-contracting period with anybody from Logicon? Answer, not that I remember by name, not that I can recall. … It's negotiating with the Air Force, not the Army, and it says to the Air Force, we have to be certain it's essential because you have a free walk at the end of any fiscal year.

Oral argument — Braintree Laboratories, Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jan 11, 2017

Are you saying that they're separate acts, or that together they're an act of infringement? Or does it make any difference in your argument? They are two acts of infringement. … So along, you're consuming various amounts of liquid en route to what I hope and imagine is a completely clean colon.

Oral argument — Hejran Hejrat Co. LTD v. US Army Corps of Engineers

Oral argument · Oral argument · Jun 5, 2019

I mean, the entire, from the contract cleaning case analysis, there are no magic words, there's no particular formula. … It's Contract Cleaning Maintenance v. United States.

Oral argument — First Heights Bank v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Mar 7, 2007

So it was merely commenting on the conduct that occurred in that case and its relevance to the common fund exception. … There's always a period in which people anticipate litigation, but it hasn't yet arisen.

Oral argument — Storer v. Clark

Oral argument · Oral argument · Sep 7, 2016

Let me start first with this visual aid because it got a lot of air time here. Who has the burden of proof to show that the provisional was enabling? … And one final comment, Your Honor. With regard to the comment about maybe Dr.

Oral argument — Ameranth, Inc. v. Agilsys, Inc.

Oral argument · Oral argument · Apr 8, 2016

Thus, nothing could have been washed clean. There was nothing there to wash clean. They didn't even consider it later on. … So there was nothing to wash clean. There was no washing, simply no washing, clean or otherwise. Mr. Franklin, this characterized what I said before.

Oral argument — In Re Mi Pueblo San Jose

Oral argument · Oral argument · Feb 5, 2010

I never got a comment on it. Never once. Well, we, you know, decision makers don't comment on every piece of evidence provided in any kind of proceeding. … I think that would be consistent with rule 2.52 rules and section 7 of the Trade Work Act.

Oral argument — Sony Electronics v. Guardian Media

Oral argument · Oral argument · Mar 6, 2007

Your Honor, if you're asking me do I think we should remand the case, based on the comments on the re-examination, I would say no. … So clearly, Your Honor, you do attribute the conduct to the predecessor, because if you didn't do that, it would be like wiping the slate clean, and you would start over.

Oral argument — Groff v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · May 8, 2007

Groff and the state of California that makes his acts not the acts of the state of California, but the acts of his employer, San Joaquin Helicopters. Mr. … We, notice and comment exists for a reason.

Oral argument — Pennzoil-Quaker State v. United States

Oral argument · Oral argument · Oct 3, 2007

The taxpayer said, well, in that case, what happened is the taxpayer paid costs in the current years to clean up past contamination, and it was the same theory. … Number two has to do, I think you can categorize it as nexus, and that is in Reynolds in the earlier period, Reynolds didn't have any relationship with its payees in the later period.

Oral argument — ArcelorMittal v. AK Steel Corporation

Oral argument · Oral argument · Nov 1, 2016

In the district court's words below, they want a clean slate. Pretend no jury trial occurred, the appeals haven't occurred. … Even if only reissue claims 24 and 25 remain, there is evidence that those claims were infringed during the time period at issue in the 050 case.