Search for: "John Does, 1-2" Results 2061 - 2080 of 10,065
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 May 2014, 5:50 pm by admin
May 27, 2014 Guest post: John Bodrug & George Addy (Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP) (Reprinted with permission) On May 23, 2014, Nazir Karigar was sentenced to three years in prison for agreeing, in his capacity as an agent of a Canadian business, to offer bribes to Air India officials and India’s then Minister of Civil Aviation in relation to a bid for a security contract. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 8:35 am by John Elwood
§ 2254(d)(2) merely because the state court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing. [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 9:48 am
John Lamborn et. al., the court held that the "exoneration rule" does not apply to lawyers engaged after conviction to try to exonerate the convict. [read post]
14 Oct 2020, 2:32 pm by John Elwood
John Elwood reviews Tuesday’s relists. [read post]
28 Jun 2009, 5:43 am
It does seem likely that politicians in general are more repressed, childish, and narcissistic than the overall population, but that is a different question.2. [read post]
1 Sep 2023, 8:08 am by admin
Saying that a tail is a leg does not make it a leg. [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 4:13 pm by Eugene Volokh
It prohibits "manufacturing, importing, offering to the public, providing, or otherwise trafficking in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof" if it (1) "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted] work;" (2) "has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent;" or (3) "is marketed …… [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 11:22 am by Orin Kerr
 In the three cases that did reach the merits, however, the government’s side readily won: 8-0, 8-1, and 7-2. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 4:00 am by Deanne Sowter
(The Alberta rule also prohibits lying by omission, see: R 7.2-2[1]). [read post]
22 Apr 2008, 10:56 am by Michael Erdman
The Court noted that in order for Washington State jurisdiction to attach, the defendant must have: (1) committed an act or transaction with the State; (2) the claim must have arisen out defendant’s activities in the State; and (3) the exercise of jurisdiction must be reasonable. [read post]