Search Results:

 QPReport
10-9995 WOOD V. MILYARD DECISION BELOW: 403 Fed. Appx. 335 LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: 1 was “not challenging" the timeliness of Mr. Wood's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the district court

 QPReport
of the law. But this Court has made clear that when a court interprets the plain meaning of a is infected with a legal error that is clear and unmistakable on the face of the ruling. The

 2015-2016 Supreme Court Fellows - Supreme Court of the United States
of his class. While in law school, Mr. Woods served as Editor in Chief of the Albany Law Review, a the United States Court of International Trade. Mr. Woods has published on a variety of legal topics

 QPReport
08-9156 WOOD V. ALLEN DECISION BELOW: 542 F.3d 1281 LIMITED TO QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 PRESENTED BY THE instead focusing solely on whether there is clear and convincing evidence in that record to rebut

 QPReport
12-562 UNITED STATES V. WOODS DECISION BELOW: 471 Fed. Appx. 320 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTION

 Maps & Brochures
Chief Justice's Year-End Reports on the Federal Judiciary Visitor’s Guide to the Supreme Court Map in Chinese, Japanese, German, French, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Korean, and Arabic

 QuestionsReport
invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § l02 (b) by "clear and convincing evidence," even though the prior art invalidity defense must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER