Search for: "Defendant Doe 2"
Results 2821 - 2840
of 40,590
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2023, 9:13 am
A close reading of the Affirmation of the Defendant's counsel does not propound arguments sounding in contempt. [read post]
28 Jul 2018, 5:04 pm
Id. at *2. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 7:31 am
Biopet Vet Lab, Inc., et. al., 2-10-cv-00616 (VAED June 27, 2011, Order) (Jackson, J.) [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 1:18 am
PW-1 and PW-2 admitted in cross-examination that visual representation by way of a Dial is quite common and that dials have been in existence since times immemorial. [read post]
28 Nov 2009, 6:48 am
That the results of the USPO's duties may have dual uses (i.e. forming the basis for a revocation of supervised release and the initiation of new criminal charges) does not run afoul of the separation of powers. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 3:12 am
Jan. 3, 2019), plaintiffs filed a legal malpractice claim against defendant. [read post]
20 May 2020, 4:27 am
The Chinese court’s rejection does not violate natural justice. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 9:18 pm
Marek, No. 072437 Conviction for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct or impede the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code is affirmed where: 1) the inference that defendant knew about the audit was supported by the record; and 2) viewed in the light most favorable to the government, defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant was guilty of the offense. . [read post]
19 Jul 2021, 6:19 am
The derivative plaintiffs/defendants, however, countered that: (1) whatever duties they owed were owed to fellow shareholders and not to Optimis; (2) in the derivative suit context, Delaware imposes no duty beyond the maintenance of the derivative suit; and (3) Delaware does not recognize a claim for money damages for a derivative suit plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty.The Chancery Court rejected the derivative plaintiffs/defendants’ arguments… [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 9:10 pm
91 CR 20006‐19, 1991 WL 352613, at *2 (N.D. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 12:11 pm
Shannon Martin’s allegations that defendants Dr. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:55 pm
Defendant’s factual account does not satisfy that element. [read post]
7 Nov 2011, 8:29 am
A simple grant after so many relists is unusual, but it does happen. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 11:22 am
” As a result, Judge Shirley granted the motion to compel production of the video, ordering the defendant “to either (1) provide the Plaintiff with a laptop computer loaded with the video recording and the software for viewing the recording, which would be used only for that litigation and returned after the litigation, or (2) request that the Plaintiff procure a software license and the Defendant would then reimburse Plaintiff for the costs of that license,… [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 6:33 am
Discussion: The defendant argues that McCauley’s testimony should not be allowed because 1) his opinions are not relevant because they are related to dismissed parties in this case; 2) he does not have first-hand experience on the use of force; and 3) one of his opinions is based on assumptions that are contradicted by evidence and testimony. [read post]
9 Jun 2014, 7:57 am
” Accordingly, Plaintiff does not wish defendants’ websites to steal Manolo Blahnik’s goodwill created over the years with its consumers and requests the Court – without prior notice to defendants – to issue: (1) a temporary restraining order against Defendants temporarily enjoining the manufacture, importation, distribution, offer for sale and sale of Counterfeit Manolo Blahnik Products; (2) an order temporarily… [read post]
29 Mar 2020, 7:00 am
Goal #2: Preserve Russia’s Sphere of Influence Disinformation also introduces a major domestic problem for the United States that requires it to focus more internally and less externally. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 8:39 pm
In reply, defendant states that plaintiff does not dispute the fact that she has failed to timely serve a complaint in this action. [read post]
6 Nov 2016, 3:58 pm
But it does not matter. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 5:00 am
Bartek, filed August 7, 2012, the Fifth Circuit held that the discovery rule does not apply to 28 U.S.C. [read post]
