Search for: "B Bledsoe" Results 1 - 20 of 44
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Oct 2009, 1:51 pm
  Bledsoe is not being charged with violating § 922(b)(1), but of conspiring to make a false material statement in the purchase of a firearm, which she admitted doing. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 11:36 am by Mack Sperling
" Judge Bledsoe recognized that his Opinion means that a party loses its "right to seek revision of a summary judgment ruling by the trial court under Rule 54(b) when the issuing Superior Court Judge retires or otherwise leaves the bench prior to the entry of a final judgment. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 12:12 pm by Jim Livesay
The younger victim had his wrist “gouged,” Bledsoe said. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 6:07 am by Sheppard Mullin
The Sixth Circuit held that nothing in Bledsoe II saved the complaint from its failure to meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). [read post]
14 May 2015, 12:42 pm by Mack Sperling
One of the most interesting Business Court decisions of last year was Judge Bledsoe's opinion in DSM Dyneema, LLC v. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 1:22 pm by Mack Sperling
  Judge Bledsoe cited a couple of cases for the propositions that: “[B]lock billing is not objectionable ‘per se,’ though it may increase the risk that the trial court, in reasonable exercise of its discretion, will discount a fee request, and that block billing precludes the court from determining that all of the amounts claimed . . . are both compensable and reasonable. [read post]
23 Dec 2015, 11:18 am by Mack Sperling
By the time of Judge Bledsoe's Order last week, the two-year period of the non-compete had expired, and Judge Bledsoe ruled that the covenant not to compete could not be enforced. [read post]
21 Oct 2009, 11:00 am
Bledsoe, who was nineteen at the time of the purchase, argues that the proscription in § 922(b)(1) on the sale of handguns by federally-licensed dealers to people under twenty-one violates her Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms, as recently recognized in District of Columbia v. [read post]