Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 2701 - 2720 of 29,812
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jul 2017, 10:13 am by Erik Weibust and Andrew Stark
The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) states very clearly that an injunction issued pursuant thereto may not “prevent a person from entering into an employment relationship,” and that any conditions placed on a former employee’s employment in an injunction must be based on “evidence of threatened misappropriation and not merely on the information the person knows. [read post]
5 Apr 2014, 2:26 pm by Stephen Bilkis
f your constitutional right has been violated in a criminal proceedings, seek the help of a Queens Grand Larceny Attorney and Queens Criminal Attorney at Stephen Bilkis and Associates. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 9:59 am
Davis, 514 F.3d 596, 607, 610 (6th Cir. 2008) (noting that an arrest is valid only if based on probable cause that defendant committed a crime); Monday v. [read post]
29 Aug 2017, 12:16 pm by Joel R. Brandes
It affirmed the award because it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion.The Appellate Division held that absent an agreement to the contrary, or without engaging in a proper analysis under the paragraph “(f)” factors of the Domestic Relations Law, the court should not have ordered defendant to pay for summer and/or extracurricular activities (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][f]; Michael J.D., 138 AD3d at 154). [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 2:00 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Boise Cascade Express,519 F.3d 1197, 1202 (10th Cir. 2008) (quotingBraley, 832 F.2d at 1512). [read post]
29 Aug 2017, 12:16 pm by Joel R. Brandes
It affirmed the award because it was not an improvident exercise of the court’s discretion.The Appellate Division held that absent an agreement to the contrary, or without engaging in a proper analysis under the paragraph “(f)” factors of the Domestic Relations Law, the court should not have ordered defendant to pay for summer and/or extracurricular activities (Domestic Relations Law § 240[1–b][f]; Michael J.D., 138 AD3d at 154). [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 6:12 am
Biggs, 70 F.3d 913 (1995), where we held that a protective sweep of a motel room 20-75 feet from the arrest site was constitutional. [read post]