Search for: "Doe Defendants 1 to 20" Results 2661 - 2680 of 8,960
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Dec 2016, 10:00 pm by Giesela Ruehl
Reasoning No 1 (Article 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia): State security. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 5:52 pm by David Ettinger
Murphy:  Was defendant’s conviction under Penal Code section 115 preempted by Vehicle Code sections 20 and 10501, subdivision (a)? [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 1:40 pm by Andrew Perlman
  Put another way, at what point does her practice in New Hampshire become sufficiently “systematic and continuous” to trigger Rule 5.5(b)(1)? [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 6:47 am
 He relied on a statement on the website which listed the `Baby Jet’ model as `in stock,’ and noted that shipments of the product would begin `October 20–30. [read post]
21 Feb 2008, 3:17 pm
  [1]  As one Google executive explains, the name Froogle "caused confusion for some because it doesn't clearly describe what the product does. [read post]
13 Apr 2010, 9:45 am by Daniel W. Whitney, Esquire
The variety of fraudulent schemes and scams is limited only by human imagination and greed, which is to say it is boundless.The FCA does not seek to impose punishment or provide remedies for innocent billing errors. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 7:30 am by Joy Waltemath
Refusing to let a Muslim employee conduct prayers in a lobby used by other businesses, in the HR director’s office, or in a hallway, did not violate Title VII where the defendants offered to let him pray off-site each day as he already did on Fridays and his suggestions would cause undue hardship, found a federal district court in Kansas, granting summary judgment for the defendants (Farah v A-1 Careers, November 20, 2013, Crow, S). [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 3:39 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
The writ of summons does not say anything about the allegations that are going to be made. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 9:05 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Tabari asks whether “(1) the product was ‘readily identifiable’ without use of the mark; (2) defendant used more of the mark than necessary; or (3) defendant falsely suggested [it] was sponsored or endorsed by the trademark holder. [read post]