At the Lectern
MARCH 28, 2024
Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero has cited the California Racial Justice Act ( here and here ) as one of the “important landmark new laws” that is “impacting [the court’s] workflow.” The court yesterday denied review and a depublication request in one case involving that legislation, Mosby v.
Patently O
FEBRUARY 27, 2024
Still, the guidelines spend some time on the requirements of a prima facie case; the necessity of both evidence and reasoning to support any obviousness rejection; and consideration of all evidence before the examiner. The guidelines do not reference the US Constitution or any other Supreme Court cases besides Graham and KSR.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
JURIST
JULY 28, 2021
This case originated in the trial court when the defendant Vince Lewis filed a petition, under a newly enacted law that took effect in January 2019, requesting counsel to challenge his murder conviction under that same law. The new law in question was California Senate Bill No.
Patently O
MARCH 31, 2024
These instructions explain the relevant law, legal standards, and how the jury should apply the law to the facts of the case when reaching a verdict. Attorneys from each side will typically propose specific instructions and object to those they believe are incorrect or incomplete. See Graham v. John Deere Co. ,
Patently O
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
by Dennis Crouch The Supreme Court is set to consider several significant patent law petitions addressing a range of issues from the application of obviousness standards, challenges to PTAB procedures, interpretation of joinder time limits IPR, to the proper scope patent eligibility doctrine. Traxcell Techs. AT&T (No. Traxcell Techs.
Patently O
DECEMBER 4, 2023
seeking to set aside a district court discovery order piercing attorney-client privilege. After reviewing documents in camera, the district court granted in part Dorel’s motion to compel production of certain Cozy documents listed as privileged on the basis that the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege applied.
At the Lectern
AUGUST 25, 2022
The defendant argued unsuccessfully that the inconsistent positions required disqualification of the district attorney’s office and that the inconsistency, which was not disclosed to the jury, deprived him of a fair penalty phase verdict. The court concluded, “The evidence was ambiguous as to the shooter’s identity. .”
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
45 
Let's personalize your content