Search for: "Dixit v. Dixit" Results 1 - 20 of 253
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2024, 3:54 am by Peter J. Sluka
  For some lawyers and experts, the results are in: Freedman Normand Friedland LLP v Cyrulnik, 21-CV-1746 (JGK) (SDNY May 15, 2024). [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 5:14 am by Guest Author
Frye on his Ipse Dixit podcast, that’s an argument about the scope of the securities laws. [read post]
26 Jan 2024, 1:15 am by CMS
The judge concluded that the court could reject an uncontroverted expert report if it were literally ipse dixit. [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 3:11 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Which similarities matter is up to the analyst and how many similarities matter is up to the expert; this is the kind of ipse dixit that district courts shouldn’t allow. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 3:38 am by INFORRM
On Friday 21 July 2023 there was a hearing in the case of Iqbal v Geo TV Limited. [read post]
The judgement comes almost a year after Twitter filed a petition in July of last year and was delivered by the single-judge bench of Justice Dixit. [read post]
8 Jun 2023, 3:57 am by JR Chaves
Se acaba de dictar, hoy 8 de junio de 2023  la esperada sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos en el caso Alonso Saura v. [read post]
19 May 2023, 2:46 pm by Josh Blackman
Yesterday, those simmering tensions seem to have boiled over in Andy Warhol Foundation v. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 4:45 pm by Lawrence Solum
Although the groundbreaking 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
2 Aug 2022, 7:14 am by John Jascob
However, the defendants had attempted to follow the Delaware Supreme Court’s framework from Kahn v. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 4:44 pm by admin
To be sure, the authors proclaimed that strong evidence of general causation somehow reduces the burden to show specific causation, but this pronouncement turned out to be an ipse dixit, without supporting analysis or citation. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 2:09 pm by admin
  Ever since the United States Supreme Court decided Daubert v. [read post]