Search for: "Matter of C.J." Results 321 - 340 of 527
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 May 2010, 2:47 am
This is always a matter of interpretation: given that it was intended to apply to a company, how was it intended to apply? [read post]
13 Apr 2021, 2:59 pm by Josh Blackman
 And if it is dubious whether a precedent "is correct as an original matter," we should "tread carefully before extending" it. [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 4:21 am by SHG
There’s no question that Martin used force, which C.J. [read post]
4 Oct 2008, 10:45 pm
Alexander and five others who were in the entourage that day have signed plea agreements with prosecutors in exchange for their testimony against Simpson and his co-defendant, Clarence "C.J. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 9:38 am by Dennis Crouch
Neither Core Wireless nor Core Wireless USA makes, uses, or sells the patented subject matter in Texas or elsewhere. [read post]
6 Jan 2019, 8:24 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Uber failed to produce any evidence in this matter as to what these laws might be. [read post]
26 Dec 2011, 2:00 am by Steve Lombardi
“While Iowa Trenchless believes this is a matter of first impression in Iowa, what both parties and the district court failed to ascertain is that Iowa has long held covenants not to compete between business owners as ancillary to a purchase agreement are viewed with more indulgence than covenants not to compete between employers and employees. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 9:58 am by WSLL
The fact that a district court has not set deadlines for discovery or filing responses to dispositive motions does not mean the parties can allow a matter to languish. [read post]
10 May 2015, 5:48 pm by WOLFGANG DEMINO
Once the plaintiff elects to sue either the employee in his individual capacity or the governmental unit, subsection (a) or (b) will “immediately and forever” bar him from subsequently electing to sue the other regarding the same subject matter. [read post]
29 Jun 2016, 12:59 pm by Eugene Volokh
’” Id. at 468 (Roberts, C.J., lead op.); id. at 492 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and in the judgment) (similarly concluding that “test[s] that [are] tied to … a court’s perception[] of . . . intent” are “ineffective to vindicate the fundamental First Amendment rights” of those against whom the intent-based law is applied). [read post]
16 Sep 2018, 12:40 pm by Wolfgang Demino
The mere fact that the subject matter of a suit does not involve a large amount in controversy does not relieve a party of the burden to dot every "i" and cross every "t. [read post]
27 Mar 2013, 10:30 am by David Fraser
Held (McLachlin C.J. and Cromwell J. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed and the general warrant and related assistance order should be quashed. [read post]
30 May 2007, 10:24 am
BAKER, C.J., dissents with separate opinion [which begins:] I respectfully dissent from the majority's interpretation of the Buy/Sell Agreement and from the ultimate disposition of this matter. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 3:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
Super. 2011), affirmed by an equally divided court, 106 A.3d 705 (Pa. 2014), which dealt with the admissibility and authentication of cell phone text messages.It can be expected that a similar ruling will also be handed down in the context of a civil litigation matter should that issue come before the trial or appellate courts.In terms of social media discovery decisions, in Kelter v. [read post]