Search for: "LONG v. BANK OF AMERICA" Results 281 - 300 of 826
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Nov 2010, 5:10 pm by Law Lady
Washington should be denied where defendant waived the right to file supplemental brief attacking his sentence by failing to raise issue in his initial brief, and court can discern no miscarriage of justice that would result on account of defendant's inability to raise proposed Blakely issue -- Long-standing rule in Eleventh Circuit that issues not properly raised in initial brief are deemed abandoned applies in context of a Blakely-based claim sought to be raised by way of… [read post]
11 Oct 2023, 11:17 am by John Elwood
Bank of America, require banks to pay at least 2% interest annually on escrow accounts associated with residential mortgages. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 3:58 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie explains that “[a]ll the justices seem to agree that Congress can write a new law targeting flat-out profanity or vulgarity as long as only modes of expression—not ideas themselves—are cabined. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 8:47 am by Eric Goldman
Larry Lessig has famously said that “fair use in America simply means the right to hire a lawyer to defend your right to create. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 5:42 am by John Elwood
Caulkett 13-1421, and Bank of America v. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 7:40 am by Wolfgang Demino
 At a bench trial, when Bank of America offered its business records as evidence, Fox objected because Bank of America had failed to identify Pearson as a witness until fourteen days before trial. [read post]
31 May 2010, 11:57 am by law shucks
The three firms co-authored a passive-aggressive letter designed to minimize their chances of ending up in his courtroom on the Bank of America suit. [read post]
18 May 2012, 6:57 pm by WOLFGANG DEMINO
In re Green Tree Servicing, LLC as Successor Servicer for BAHS — A Division of Bank of America, FSB, 04-12-00277-CV (Tex.App.- San Antonio, May 15, 2012) (arbitration-related mandamus petition denied because interlocutory appeal now available) EXCERPT FROM TEXAS SUPREME COURT’S OPINION IN CMH Homes v. [read post]