Search for: "FNS"
Results 81 - 100
of 1,410
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Oct 2017, 7:52 am
This is from the Indonesia - Chicken WTO panel report, circulated yesterday: Fn. 318. [read post]
10 May 2011, 3:26 pm
Torrance Memorial Hospital Medical Center (1994) 8 Cal.4th 992, 1001, fn. 4 [the “common knowledge” exception to the rule requiring expert testimony to establish professional negligence “appears to be a corollary to the observation ‘you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 8:56 am
Here is the abstract:While recognising that even the idea itself of jus cogens elicits emotional responses and very much approximates, to quote Mani on the universal application of international legal norms, a "religion, unquestioned and unquestionable",FN this article has three objectives. [read post]
22 Aug 2017, 1:04 pm
(cf. fn 2). [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 8:58 am
Fn. [read post]
30 Aug 2017, 11:44 am
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115) do not apply to unpublished federal cases (Farm Raised Salmon Cases (2008) 42 Cal.4th 1077, 1096, fn. 18). [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 3:31 pm
" One of the many errors (discussed in fn. 6) is how Appellant certified his brief contained 15,905 words, i.e., well within in compliance with the 25,500 words allowed by CRC 8.360(b)(1). [read post]
19 Dec 2018, 1:56 pm
., fn. 28, p. 32). [read post]
23 Jan 2010, 2:55 pm
JobID=85798668&JobTitle=Trial+Attorney&sort=rv%2c-dtex&cn=&rad_units=miles&brd=3876&pp=50&fn=4466&jbf574=DJ*&vw=d&re=134&FedEmp=N&FedPub=Y&caller=agency.aspx&AVSDM=2010-01-20+23%3a25%3a00 Trial Attorney,... [read post]
26 Apr 2021, 10:59 am
Hollis (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 948, 955 fn. 4). [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 4:51 pm
Although forgetting the declaration may be "overlooked" (as was done here today, quote below from fn.1), best to do it correctly:The parties’ motion failed to include a joint declaration by counsel as required by local rule. [read post]
11 Jul 2023, 1:14 pm
Case in point here, fn.2 in this published 9th Circuit opinion today:We reject the City’s argument that we should dismiss the appeal as defective because Plaintiffs copied and pasted sections of their district court brief. [read post]
2 Jan 2018, 1:34 pm
Examples abound, with two in a row last week, here (pp. 5-6) and here (p. 3, fn.1).Also of note from last week, this 9th Cir. opinion here about anti-SLAPP appealability.And see The Great Reshaping: How Trump is Changing the Game on Judicial Nominations: With 148 judicial vacancies as of Jan. 2 and an increasingly aging federal bench, President Donald Trump could remake the federal judiciary on a scale that hasn’t been possible in decades. [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 10:19 am
To the extent that In re Brandon T. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1491 holds to the contrary, we respectfully disagree.See also fn. 2 for a history lesson: Did you know that One Punch Man served as Abe Lincoln's body guard? [read post]
30 Mar 2023, 3:36 pm
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, who is chair of the committee.Hey, if you settle the day before oral argument, your stipulated request to dismiss may be denied and a published opinion could issue if the appeal presents important legal issues of continuing interest to the public--as here today (see fn. 2). [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 6:23 pm
Here's an unpub'd decision that let's a pro per appellant know (in fn.3) that it's not cool to get too cutesy the court:"Nor does appellant’s decision to act as his own attorney entitle him to be disrespectful to this court or his opposing counsel. [read post]
24 Nov 2022, 6:31 am
(…) Fn. 3: Under the Patent Act, an application for a patent must include “one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. [read post]
23 May 2022, 8:42 am
fn=chl341s663.txt&truetag=2&titles=&contents=&dbt=chl. [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 6:32 pm
But the Court of Appeal here (in fn.1) says no dice:A “respondent” is an adverse party (Cal. [read post]
1 Feb 2017, 1:41 pm
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, and XVII of the Discussion.And see fn.12 in this case here for a mention of Judge Lucy Koh! [read post]
