Search for: "Jones v. No Defendants Named" Results 281 - 300 of 1,011
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Walter Dellinger
Richard Nixon was so named in the Watergate indictment, and that inclusion was sustained by Judge John Sirica and defended by the United States in United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2018, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
 The defendant’s appeal was dismissed. [read post]
6 Jun 2018, 10:17 am by John Elwood
United States, namely, whether a plea agreement under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) (under which the prosecution and defense agree to a specific sentence) is “based on” the defendant’s Federal Sentencing Guidelines range if the guidelines range was part of the framework the district court relied on. [read post]
27 May 2018, 4:36 pm by INFORRM
On 22 May 2018 Nicklin J heard a preliminary issue on meaning in the case of Gideon Falter v Gilad Atzmon concerning an article on the defendant’s website entitled “Antisemitism is merely a business plan”. [read post]
25 May 2018, 6:41 am by John Elwood
Oklahoma, 17-6891, and Jones v. [read post]
22 May 2018, 9:51 am by Archis Parasharami and Dan Jones
Archis Parasharami is a partner and Dan Jones is an associate at Mayer Brown. [read post]
9 May 2018, 9:40 am by John Elwood
If that seems as familiar as Indiana Jones 4, that very question is already before the court in a number of serial relists: Allen v. [read post]
7 May 2018, 5:00 am by Shannon Togawa Mercer, Ashley Deeks
“Artificial Intelligence Could Soon Enhance Real-Time Police Surveillance” reads a recent Wall Street Journal headline. [read post]
7 May 2018, 3:52 am by INFORRM
Last Week in the Courts  On 1 May 2018, Warby J gave judgment on the committal application in the case of Pirtek (UK) Ltd v Jackson [2018] EWHC 1004 (QB) finding that the defendant was in contempt of court. [read post]
25 Apr 2018, 8:54 am by Seyfarth Shaw
  No appellate court had ever addressed this question until the Eleventh Circuit did so last week in Mickles et al. v. [read post]