Search for: "John Doe Defendants I Through X"
Results 1 - 20
of 193
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Oct 2015, 2:39 pm
When the Supreme Court of Canada says “X” in 2007, and repeats “X” in 2011 adding explicitly that “X does not mean Y but means Z”, it is reasonable to assume (is it not?) [read post]
6 Jan 2022, 12:21 am
Retromark Volume X: the last six months in trade marksby Darren Meale Retromark turns ten volumes, making it about four and a half human years old. [read post]
24 May 2013, 6:00 am
John Marsh, Russell Beck, and I just recorded another episode of the Fairly Competing podcast (which will be available Tuesday morning), and we discussed the latest chapter in United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2017, 1:19 pm
Army Colonel John Wells responds for the prosecution focusing on the classification issue, though he does concede that the pace of discovery leaves much to be desired. [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 7:11 am
I thought I'd pass along a long excerpt from this amicus brief, which my students Samantha Frazier, Katelyn Taira, and Jacob Haas and I wrote on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition and myself; for more on the decision below, which indeed rejected pseudonymity, see here. [* * *] Summary of Argument John Doe is trying to punish Jane Doe … for accusing him of sexual assault. [read post]
6 Jun 2020, 4:59 pm
The plaintiffs also assert that the Packing Defendants and John Doe Defendants manipulated the price of live cattle futures and options, causing them injury. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 8:48 am
Further, John Doe is the only person who can bring a motion to quash the subpoena before the court. [read post]
15 Nov 2011, 2:41 pm
” We found the Defendant guilty on 7 of 8 counts, and I will not say anything about our reasoning. [read post]
28 Aug 2006, 6:47 am
I shall call her X. [read post]
11 Jan 2018, 10:05 pm
I reported earlier this week on new rules relating to confidential and privileged data on an iPhone when you pass through customs to re-enter the U.S. [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 6:02 pm
Indeed, I wouldn’t mind seeing courts exclude dubious defendants’ expert witnesses. [read post]
7 Jun 2020, 1:17 am
The per curiam decision does not reveal whether the American Medical Association ethical and practice guidelines, discussed more fully below, were raised in support of the plaintiff’s claim. [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 2:01 pm
I had my first summer party back when I was in college. [read post]
21 Jan 2007, 9:41 pm
Less obviously, that X is a legal cause of Y does not entail that X is a cause-in-fact of Y. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 2:30 am
I think not. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:29 am
Argument [I.] [read post]
27 Jan 2013, 2:53 pm
Last week the Legal Services Board published research that it had commissioned on the Cab Rank Rule, prepared by Professors John Flood and Morton Hviid. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 1:34 pm
I must be an optimist, because I suffered all the way through Jonah Goldberg’s screedy Los Angeles Times column yesterday about how the liberals are a-gonna destroy free speech. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 12:54 pm
And, I am afraid, American law schools do relatively little to educate our students, save for those who are self-motivated to learn through, e.g., taking often excellent clinics. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 6:34 pm
” = = = = Question: How does the printed-matter-doctrine apply to letters that can only be read using an X-ray? [read post]
