Search for: "Worth v. No Named Defendant"
Results 221 - 240
of 2,521
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jun 2022, 7:02 pm
The reasoning is crucial and worth quoting: Here, each Plaintiff pleads the identical assertion that he resides “in close proximity to” Defendants’ businesses, has been a “customer at Defendant’s [location] on prior occasions,” and “intends to immediately purchase at least one store gift card from the Defendant as soon as the Defendant sells store gift cards that are accessible to the blind. [read post]
4 Jun 2022, 12:00 pm
" In addition, the defendants participated in exchanges with an individual named Derek Myers. [read post]
4 Jun 2022, 8:35 am
" In the same footnote, Nokia explains that one can deduce from the findings of fact and conclusions of law in FTC v. [read post]
30 May 2022, 8:25 am
But it seems a task worth undertaking to create clear precedent. [read post]
27 May 2022, 10:02 am
Zoosk Complaint Wireless Discovery LLC v. [read post]
25 May 2022, 10:19 am
VoiceAge EVS v. [read post]
24 May 2022, 4:16 pm
If a claimant has lied in their pleadings or evidence, they could face contempt proceedings or a prosecution for perjury – rare, but not unheard of (see R v Jeffrey Archer and R v Jonathan Aitkin). [read post]
23 May 2022, 9:01 pm
Legal rights are therefore ephemeral, as we know from the likely imminent demise of Roe v. [read post]
19 May 2022, 4:45 am
Pursuant to Rule 19.1(b), the defendant will be able to question the competence of the division indicated by the claimant. [read post]
17 May 2022, 2:27 pm
Worth Publishers, Inc. [read post]
12 May 2022, 6:02 am
One perhaps quixotic result is that UCL standing may be unavailable if the defendant’s product is worthless—since a consumer would never want to buy a worthless product again—but available if the product is worth something, just not as much as the defendant charged for it. [read post]
9 May 2022, 3:40 pm
As an initial matter, because it is Netflix, the publicly named criminal defendant, seeking disclosure here, the first and fifth reasons are inapplicable. [read post]
5 May 2022, 2:20 pm
The "original URL," for whatever it's worth, is someone's copy of a version of an amicus brief that I had filed in the California Supreme Court Hassell v. [read post]
4 May 2022, 1:34 pm
But beyond that, in the words of Corbello v. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 8:50 am
Editors’ note: This article is the fifth installment in our Still at War Symposium, which can be accessed here. [read post]
29 Apr 2022, 5:01 am
(Perhaps it is two broad questions—one about legal responsibility and one about moral responsibility—but I think the two are connected enough to be worth discussing together.) [read post]
26 Apr 2022, 5:40 am
People v. [read post]
25 Apr 2022, 9:01 pm
The Court seemed to hold that in 1962, when it ruled in Engel v. [read post]
23 Apr 2022, 7:10 am
What hidden asset could possibly be worth such a consequence? [read post]
22 Apr 2022, 5:01 am
Over the past month, however, China has defended its buildup of anti-ship and anti-aircraft missile systems, jamming equipment, and fighter jets on the islands, claiming that they are “necessary national defense facilities. [read post]
