Search for: "IN RE B E S" Results 3481 - 3500 of 7,828
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2015, 3:29 pm by Andrew Delaney
I don’t know about you but this is starting to sound like some Wiley E. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 2:20 pm by Kent Scheidegger
In Re Davenport, 147 F.3d 605 (7th Cir. 1998), invoking section 2255(e) to permit filing a successive petition under section 2241 as to a claim of actual innocence of the crime based upon a retroactive Supreme Court ruling that limited the definition of the crime as a matter of statutory interpretation. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 4:00 am
If I’m reading the Magistrate Judge’s opinion correctly, you’re always interacting with Microsoft in the United States when you set up a Microsoft e-mail account. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 3:54 pm by Jon McLaughlin
  Public Act 099-0090 SB0057 EnrolledLRB099 05449 HEP 25484 b    AN ACT concerning civil law. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 3:28 pm
A President appoints C as an ambassador, which Senator D asked the President to do, in exchange for D’s promise to vote to confirm E as a member of the National Labor Relations Board. [read post]
21 Jul 2015, 8:11 am
(Terezinha Féres-Carneiro,1998)“Na ordem natural, os homens são todos iguais, sua vocação comum é o estado de ser um homem, e qualquer pessoa que seja bem educada para isso, não pode exercer esse estado mal [...] [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 9:07 am by Marty Lederman
 And so, here's a post devoted to catching up, in three parts. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 11:31 am by @travelblawg
If you’re having bottle service alone, you likely are not having a very happy hour or otherwise. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 3:43 am
"Common law test - "[B]ased on the employer’s control over the worker" (specifically, control over when, where, and how the work gets done).In it's latest interpretation, DOL came down in favor of the economic realities test. [read post]
15 Jul 2015, 4:00 am by Administrator
Société québécoise des infrastructures (Société immobilière du Québec), 2015 QCCA 1153 [33] Les principes applicables en matière d’obligation de motiver sont bien connus et SNC a raison de rappeler qu’il s’agit là d’une obligation fondamentale. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 11:03 pm by Andrew Langille
With respect to Morris’ conduct Silvera claimed the following: (a) general damages for pain and suffering, including aggravated damages, in the amount of $150,000.00; (b) punitive damages in the amount of $75,000.00; (c) $33,924.75 in damages for loss of earning capacity; (d) costs of future therapy and care in the amount of $42,750.00; and, (e) $40,000.00 in damages for a breach of the Human Rights Code. [read post]
14 Jul 2015, 11:03 pm by Andrew Langille
With respect to Morris’ conduct Silvera claimed the following: (a) general damages for pain and suffering, including aggravated damages, in the amount of $150,000.00; (b) punitive damages in the amount of $75,000.00; (c) $33,924.75 in damages for loss of earning capacity; (d) costs of future therapy and care in the amount of $42,750.00; and, (e) $40,000.00 in damages for a breach of the Human Rights Code. [read post]
12 Jul 2015, 11:00 am by Benjamin Wittes
"[E]xceptional access would create concentrated targets that could attract bad actors. [read post]
12 Jul 2015, 3:50 am by Martin Steiger
Sie können sämtliche Chats und E-Mails mitlesen, Mikrofone und Webcams unbemerkt verwenden sowie jegliche Nutzung überwachen. [read post]
11 Jul 2015, 8:16 pm by Stephen Bilkis
., dated November 13, 2006, and upon the order to show cause granted on November 13, 2006, together with due proof of service thereof, and Abrams, Fensterman, Fensterman, Eisman, Greenberg, Formato & Einiger, LLP, Allan E. [read post]
9 Jul 2015, 10:06 am by Dennis Crouch
 In a concurring opinion, Judge Hughes wrote that “[t]he majority’s interpretation of § 324(e) to permit review of whether Versata’s patent is a ‘covered business method patent’ directly conflicts with our precedential decision in In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC, (Fed. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 11:58 am
A federal district court today upheld the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s cancellation of the Redskins mark. [read post]