Search for: "Doe Defendants I through X"
Results 1 - 20
of 982
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Mar 2024, 11:27 am
He calls out Twitter for its bad choice: This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech…X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. [read post]
20 Nov 2007, 6:15 pm
I see London, I see France, I see a failed attempt to appeal a Los Angeles trial court decision on X-ray machines at state prisons! [read post]
27 Apr 2023, 12:49 pm
Soon after I posted, a reader asked whether introducing those records through an affidavit from a records custodian violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him or her. [read post]
12 May 2009, 7:49 pm
Linda X., M.D., Linda X., M.D., Inc., General Medical Center, a Corporation, and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 4:03 pm
Just because the court has authority to do X does not justify X. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 6:37 am
MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC., and X HOLDINGS II, INC., Defendants. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 6:37 am
MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC., and X HOLDINGS II, INC., Defendants. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 10:51 am
This is why it is important for a defendant to have an attorney by his or her side who can look into the facts of the case and identify when certain testimony does not add up. [read post]
17 May 2024, 8:36 am
First, because X does not own the copyright in the scraped posts, its ToS impede its users’ ability to exploit their copyright in their tweets. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 10:50 pm
I have now got hold of the judgment in X v Hounslow [2008] All ER 337 (May) (thanks to assorted helpful sprites). [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 1:02 pm
My whole life I was made to believe I was sick when I wasn’t…. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 1:12 pm
My whole life I was made to believe I was sick when I wasn’t…. [read post]
10 Dec 2021, 10:11 am
App’x 723 (9th Cir. 2021); La’Tiejira v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 8:00 am
What's more, applying the exclusio unius presumption (that when Congress specifies X we can assume that it meant not to specify X elsewhere) to a statute as long and complicated as the ACA -- and one that did not go through the usual linguistic "clean up" process in Conference (as I wrote here) does a disservice to textualism and all those who have defended it over the years--turning it into a wooden unreasonable… [read post]
26 May 2023, 1:15 pm
Some of my best Virginia criminal plea negotiations come when I least expect them, sometimes after I merely say to the prosecutor in passing, something along the lines of: "Since you are not going to agree to a plea of X, we will simply go to trial", and sometimes the prosecutor agrees to X. [read post]
13 Oct 2019, 1:00 am
If the equipment you are using on the job was manufactured by company X and was the cause of your injuries, you can get workers’ comp while suing company X for any malfunctioning equipment. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 2:49 pm
He submits what he believes is conclusive evidence negating X, so he does not expend the resources to negate Y. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 11:54 pm
For example, if a defendant is on benefit and does not own anything valuable, the chances of getting paid are low. [read post]
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]
