Search for: "Plaintiff 1 et al v. Wells et al" Results 141 - 160 of 1,692
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2022, 2:46 pm by admin
Jan. 5, 2022). [4] Daubert v. [read post]
6 Nov 2022, 10:44 am by Russell Knight
If the terms of a potential divorce are not set in advance, the terms of the potential divorce will be the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS 5/et al. [read post]
23 Sep 2022, 4:30 am by Michael C. Dorf
FRCP 23(a)(1) requires, as a prerequisite to class treatment, that the plaintiffs be "so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
A second follow-up case, Steinmetz et al v Germany, was filed in 2022. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 6:06 am by Dan Bressler
”] “On or about December 8, 2014, plaintiff signed a retainer agreement with defendant law firm Julien & Schlesinger (“J&S”)… ‘It is undisputed that, on January 6, 2016, Schlesinger, was no longer an employee of J&S, which ceased operations in 2015, became an associate at defendant Morelli Law Firm, PLLC.'” “‘On or about January 28, 2016, plaintiff commenced a personal injury action in this Court styled Hazel… [read post]
16 Sep 2022, 5:14 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
On or about January 28, 2016, plaintiff commenced a personal injury action in this Court styled Hazel Carasco v City of New York, Consolidated Edison Company, and Halcyon Construction Company, et. al., under Ind. [read post]
15 Sep 2022, 1:24 pm by admin
Cheng’s most recent article, “The Consensus Rule: A New Approach to Scientific Evidence,”[1] while thought provoking, follows in the long-standing tradition of law school professors to advocate evidence law reforms, based upon theoretical considerations devoid of practical or real-world support. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 10:52 pm by Jeff Nowak
Barris et al: fielding occasional calls about one’s job is a “professional courtesy” that does not interfere with FMLA rights (FMLA claims dismissed) Persson v. [read post]
  There have also been reports that the FTC is actively investigating violations of past merger consent decrees, potentially with the aim of unwinding the previously cleared merger.15 In this vein, the agencies have been issuing “close at your own risk” letters to merging parties in non-challenged and non-remedy transactions that remind the parties that the agencies retain the authority to challenge mergers after they have closed and that expiration of an HSR waiting period does not… [read post]