Search for: "DOE DEFENDANT"
Results 2341 - 2360
of 112,761
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jan 2015, 11:42 am
The complaint names the company as a defendant, but no individual executives, managers, or supervisors. [read post]
17 Oct 2014, 7:10 am
While [defendant's] conduct does not require a complete denial of its application for fees and costs, it does justify a further reduction of the amount to be awarded to Defendant based on its overreaching with respect to its application. . . . [read post]
4 Jan 2010, 10:59 am
Doe, No. 08-4064-cr (2d Cir. [read post]
2 Jan 2017, 2:23 pm
Although it appears that the plaintiff (or her counsel) was genuinely confused about who (or what) to sue, neither the trial court nor the state court of appeals was sympathetic, ruling that fictitious names such as XYZ Co. or Jane Doe can be used to toll a statute of limitations against an unnamed defendant only in the event that the plaintiff actually does not know the name of the party at the time the case was filed. [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 9:24 am
In denying defendants' motions to transfer venue, the court gave no weight to plaintiff's office in the local venue. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 5:42 pm
DOES A JURY HAVE TO FIND THAT A PRIOR QUALIFIES AS A STRIKE? [read post]
19 Feb 2024, 1:43 pm
Therefore, “a nonresident defendant must have certain ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state, ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. [read post]
18 Feb 2017, 2:28 pm
What does not mean? [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 1:06 pm
This instruction does not come into play when the defendant admits he/she took the property, but, perhaps, defends the case by saying he/she had a right to take it. [read post]
6 Jul 2017, 11:23 am
The person in the video (suing as Jane Doe) thought it had been destroyed, but she recently discovered it had been posted on Tumblr and then reblogged hundreds of times. [read post]
11 Apr 2013, 12:57 am
Defendant’s failure to object does not constitute a waiver. [read post]
12 Dec 2023, 10:25 am
As another court explained, “Distinct individuals or entities independently selling counterfeit goods over the internet does not satisfy the transaction or occurrence requirement of FRCP 20.6. [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 10:00 pm
The Appeals Court noted that when a defendant is a corporation, like Diamond, venue is proper in the county where the accident occurred, where the defendant’s principal office is located, or where the plaintiff resides if the defendant conducts business in that county. [read post]
10 Jul 2018, 10:46 am
(Crim.R. 11 does not require the trial court to inform a defendant of its authority under R.C. 2929.141 to impose an additional, consecutive prison term.) [read post]
23 Jun 2009, 12:20 am
Under the circumstances, the Court will not now, over the Defendants objections, stay this case. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 6:24 am
This decision will probably be best known for its holdings that a defendant’s motion for attorney’s fees as a sanction under section 57.105 does not waive the defendant’s personal jurisdiction challenge and that the corporate shield doctrine can preclude personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant in the context of allegedly defamatory Internet publications. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 7:18 pm
Former Brandeis President Judah Reinharz is still repulsively defending his (failed) plan to sell some of the school's artwork:"Reinharz was thinking about the economic security of the university’s staff ... [read post]
18 Feb 2014, 9:22 am
You also do not have the right to fire your public defender and get a new one. [read post]
26 Jun 2014, 7:12 am
"Although it is true that [plaintiff] does not actively practice the patents and, therefore, does not compete with [defendant], it is also true that the longer [defendant] is allowed to engage in allegedly infringing activity, the lower the value of the patents becomes as licensing assets. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 10:20 am
According to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the defendant could have wanted some sort of weird animal called a lawyer dog: In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog”does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. [read post]
