Search for: "MATTER OF C M R"
Results 2121 - 2140
of 2,967
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2011, 8:52 pm
Watson, Kory R. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 7:25 pm
Confirmation of multi-million dollar award reversedKarlseng v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 4:00 am
" (Here's a link to the article, but I'm afraid it's only accessible to Law Journal subscribers.) [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 7:14 am
I’m not so sure. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 5:53 am
C. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 2:48 am
I suppose, in one sense, it didn't matter for Mr Babakandi as his suspension had been removed. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 2:48 am
I suppose, in one sense, it didn't matter for Mr Babakandi as his suspension had been removed. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 7:00 am
How an appropriate discount is determined in such a situation is a matter of justifying legal theories in relation to financial data and risk. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 7:04 am
No, I’m not having fun,” said Johnson, good-naturedly. [read post]
3 Jul 2011, 11:08 pm
John C. [read post]
1 Jul 2011, 10:54 am
Far too many attorneys in firms large and small think that e-discovery is something they can do on the side, when they are not drafting motions to dismiss an antitrust class action or preparing to depose a scientist in a patent infringement matter. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 9:58 am
Representing Appellee in case S-10-0166 (Plaintiff): Glenn M. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 9:37 am
(I'm looking forward to seeing both sides of this debate.) [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 10:23 pm
I'm not sure that they technically need to do so, but trustees are cautious types who like comfort orders. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 9:39 am
Olson, Appellate Counsel; and Eric M. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 8:17 am
In Canada, the Supreme Court in R. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 6:00 am
Accordingly, the Board vacated the decision of the CO in denying labor certification and returned the matter to the CO for completion of processing. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 7:27 am
I’m reading the opinion now, and hope to have more to say about it soon.UPDATE: Here’s a brief summary of the Justices’ views on the matter:Majority (Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan):(1) Video games are within the protection of the First Amendment, just as are other forms of entertainment (and entertainment has long been seen as constitutionally protected, partly because it can embody ideas, including political… [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 5:27 pm
C. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 5:12 pm
For the first time in a substantive Confrontation Clause opinion in the Crawford era (I’m not counting Whorton v. [read post]
