Search for: "In Re: Amendments to the Supreme Court Rules Relating to Admissions to the Bar"
Results 201 - 220
of 244
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2010, 2:20 pm
Koninklijke Philips Electronics Docket: 09-389 Issue: Whether a party contesting the jurisdiction of the district court must first move to vacate or set aside a default judgment pursuant to either Rule 55(c) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the District Court as a prerequisite to appealing the default judgment. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010 Wood v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:26 pm
Supreme Court, January 20, 2010 Wood v. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:21 pm
Supreme Court of California, January 21, 2010 In re Freeman, No. [read post]
26 Jan 2010, 1:21 pm
Supreme Court of California, January 21, 2010 In re Freeman, No. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 4:03 pm
In In re Mance, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that flat fees are not earned upon receipt. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Naturally, we’re most interested in the recall cases involving prescription medical products. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Naturally, we’re most interested in the recall cases involving prescription medical products. [read post]
28 Sep 2009, 1:31 am
Naturally, we’re most interested in the recall cases involving prescription medical products. [read post]
24 Sep 2009, 5:09 am
Fortunately, the Reese court said, "no way, no how," and joined the vast majority of courts refuse to allow common-law claims for failure to recall a product in the absence of any governmental edict.For one thing, failure-to-recall claims are barred by the state of the art defense:[N]o common law duty exists. . .requiring a manufacturer to recall a product after the product has left the manufacturer's control. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 1:26 pm
The SEC also launched an investigation of credit rating agencies, and, on February 2, 2009, adopted amendments to the rules governing nationally recognized statistical rating organizations to address concerns about the integrity of the process by which rating agencies rate structured finance products.[12] The SEC has filed civil charges against a number of market participants. [read post]
16 Jan 2009, 7:00 am
(IP finance) Global - Copyright A bit about derivative works (Ip's What's Up) Australia Singapore Treaty takes effect March 2009 (Australian Trade Marks Law Blog) Capital allowances: business related costs – business transfer arrangement establishing right to intellectual property (IP Down Under) Droit de suite scheme introduced into Parliament (International Law Office) Interlocutory relief partially granted in Sebel Furniture Limited v… [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
Because the government moved to vacate defendant's sentence well beyond the 7-day period provided for in Rule 35, the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion or vacate the sentence. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 9:18 pm
Epps, No. 0860652 In an Eight Amendment challenge to lethal injection as the method of execution for two death-row inmates, rulings that the applicable statute of limitations barred plaintiffs' section 1983 action and grant of summary judgment to defendant are affirmed where: 1) under Wilson v. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 6:39 pm
(Substituted opinion) U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, November 13, 2008 In re: Gallaher, No. 07-74593 In a criminal appeal arising from a district court's refusal to accept a conditional guilty plea, a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the refusal is denied but the matter is remanded for reassignment to a new judge to reconsider the conditional plea where: 1) under Fed. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 10:39 pm
Therefore, the right to liberty or freedom is taken away by the court if an offender is given a custodial sentence.Historically, convicted prisoners have been barred from voting since the Forfeiture Act 1870, and more recently by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 from voting in parliamentary or local elections. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 7:03 pm
Levesque, No. 081344 A forfeiture order for $3,068,000 for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more of marijuana, is vacated and remanded where: 1) 21 U.S.C. section 853 authorizes money judgments; 2) the case is remanded to give district court the opportunity to consider whether and to what extent the ruling in the recent Supreme Court case, US v. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 6:46 pm
Supreme Court, October 14, 2008 Moore v. [read post]
14 Oct 2008, 3:20 pm
Bissonnette, No. 081094 In a conviction for first degree murder, denial of writ of habeas corpus is affirmed over claims that: 1) the trial judge's instruction to the jury that the prosecution "does not have the burden of proving that no one else may have committed the murder" was an error that was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court precedent as stated in In re Winship; and 2) the trial court violated defendant's Sixth… [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Riggi, No. 061280 Conviction on charges arising out of involvement in an organized crime family, including racketeering, murder and related conspiracies, is vacated and remanded where admission of eight plea allocutions of non-testifying co-conspirators amounted to plain error under the intervening authority of Crawford v. [read post]
