Search for: "Defendant Doe 1" Results 241 - 260 of 45,876
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jul 2021, 3:20 pm by Bill Pratt
Nonetheless, in the civil case the plaintiff filed an amended complaint identifying “John Doe” as the personal representative of Todd’s estate and substituting “John Doe” for Todd as the party defendant. [read post]
7 Sep 2023, 5:27 am by Krzysztof Pacula
How does the anchor defendant mechanism operate in the realm of EU trade marks and actions on trade mark infringement? [read post]
23 Sep 2008, 1:01 pm
Exclusionary rule does not apply to driver license suspension proceedings. [read post]
30 Jul 2021, 8:22 am by Yuanchung Lee
These are the steps that a trial judge must follow: (1) the jury inquiry should be in writing; (2) the note should be marked as the court’s exhibit …The post District court’s egregious flouting of long-established procedures regarding a jury note and a proposed Allen charge does not constitute “plain error” because its mistakes did not prejudice the defendant appeared first on Federal Defenders of New York Blog. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 3:37 am
When activity appears to be suspicious, officers do not have to take at face value the detainee's denials or explanations such that reasonable suspicion does not evaporate judge because of the defendant's denial. [read post]
6 Feb 2017, 11:05 am by Rob McKinney
Effective January 1, 2017, the Nashville Public Defenders Office will not be accepting  misdemeanor criminal cases where the accused makes bond. [read post]
1 Apr 2008, 2:07 am
Defendant's unlawful detention does not require suppression the finding of a separate warrant for the defendant's arrest because the official misconduct was not flagrant. [read post]
23 May 2008, 5:16 am
Officer does not have to tell the defendant he was free to leave for the stop to be consensual. [read post]
12 Feb 2008, 2:25 pm
In a decision last week, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling in a trademark case in favor of the defendant, finding the defendant's use of the vanity telephone number "1-800-SKI-VAIL" for marketing services relating to the ski industry was not likely to be confused with the Plaintiff's service mark registration for "VAIL" encompassing the gamut of commercial recreational activities and… [read post]