Search for: "John Doe #1 to John Doe #10" Results 201 - 220 of 5,416
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jul 2011, 9:31 am by John Lewis
Sterling Jewelers, Inc.pdf., Case No. 10-3247, 2d Cir., 7-1-11, allows a putative class of female retail sales employees to advance their claims of sex discrimination in promotion and pay to arbitration despite the United States Supreme Court decision in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2019, 1:20 pm by Eugene Volokh
I've recently started looking into anonymous "John Doe" (or "Jane Doe") litigation; generally speaking, people are presumptively required to sue in their own names, but sometimes courts allow them to sue anonymously. [read post]
8 Oct 2021, 5:10 am by Eugene Volokh
But federal courts generally view Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) as presumptively barring pseudonymous litigation, so the federal judge (Judge James Gwin) on his own initiative required the parties to explain why they should remain anonymous—and ultimately concluded that they had to be identified: On March 12, 2020, Plaintiff John Doe sued Defendant Jane Doe in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. [read post]
30 Mar 2008, 12:23 am
The examiner essentially adopted requestor's issue 10, an obviousness rejection over TopClass, and accepted with modificationissues 1-6. [read post]
26 Oct 2009, 9:26 pm by Pilchman & Kay P.L.C.
Between June 1, 2007, and Aug. 27, 2007, Perez is accused of having an unlawful sexual relationship with John Doe in her Brea home. [read post]
11 Mar 2014, 5:22 am by Juan C. Antúnez
, a cover story on the case that recently ran in the Washington Post Magazine: Johns Hopkins University and Montgomery County plan a $10 billion “science city” that could surround the farm with nearly 5 million square feet of commercial space. [read post]
9 Apr 2023, 9:05 pm by renholding
Indeed, Trump, as the payor of the money, and not the payee, does not look like he was seeking a financial profit. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 8:37 am by Jeff Kosseff
District Court for the District of Colorado denied a blog administrator’s motion to quash subpoenas for the identities of 10 John Doe defendants who had allegedly defamed the plaintiff company on the blog. [read post]