Search for: "Doe Defendants 1 to 20"
Results 3781 - 3800
of 8,960
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2017, 9:12 am
The Second Circuit reasoned that “the existence of an ongoing business plan to develop the Haynesville Shale does not exempt the defendants from [the production in paying quantities] requirement. [read post]
10 Jun 2017, 9:32 am
See Amy Rubenstein and Malerie Ma Roddy, “Talc Talk: 1 Of These Verdicts Is Not Like The Others,” Law360 (June 1, 2017). [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 2:16 pm
This rule ensures that a criminal defendant will no [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 11:28 am
Although self[-]defense involves a lawful use of a weapon, it does not justify the unlawful possession [*20] of the weapon under Section 5(d) except when a person uses a weapon after arming himself or herself spontaneously to repel an immediate danger. [read post]
9 Jun 2017, 4:37 am
This doesn’t mean being perfect, but it does mean using good judgment, and that is something intoxicated people don’t often do. [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 7:06 am
The second AI, FLSA2016-1, Joint Employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (issued January 20, 2016), clarified that the DOL believed joint employment can exist, for FLSA purposes, in two circumstances: (1) when an employee has two or more separate but related or associated employers and (2) when one employer provides labor to another employer and the workers are economically dependent on both employers. [read post]
8 Jun 2017, 4:00 am
Section 20 sets out limited circumstances in which counsel may act in a CRT proceeding. [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 2:49 pm
” In fact, the court noted, violation of the directive in G.S. 20-166(b) to provide reasonable assistance is itself a Class 1 misdemeanor. [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 1:57 pm
According to the report, which for some unknown reason does not link to a copy of the motion, Melendez argued that “[j]uggling three wads of paper for 20 seconds” would be enough to establish this, and that in fact this would be “not only the simplest, but the only possible proof that the defendant is a jester. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 2:24 pm
The omission was clearly an intra vires error but, in my view, that does not mean it falls within the slip rule. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm
” 21 CFR 101.4(b)(20). [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm
” 21 CFR 101.4(b)(20). [read post]
2 Jun 2017, 11:59 am
Attorneys’ Manual breaks down the three elements of an obstruction charge: “(1) there was a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States; (2) the defendant knew of or had a reasonably founded belief that the proceeding was pending; and (3) the defendant corruptly endeavored to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which the proceeding was pending. [read post]
31 May 2017, 4:27 am
The Sentencing Commission does not account for Rule 35(b) reductions. [read post]
30 May 2017, 1:16 pm
The Defendants admitted fault. [read post]
30 May 2017, 8:30 am
§ 1152(a)(1)(A)” of the INA (p. 129). [read post]
29 May 2017, 7:31 am
Perdue, supra.The judge goes on to explain that the court agrees with the courts that have concluded that Rule 41(b)(4) does not extend to the NIT Warrant. [read post]
28 May 2017, 7:00 am
Call Freeman Injury Law — 1-800-561-7777 for a free appointment to discuss your rights. [read post]
27 May 2017, 1:56 pm
We’re gonna do territories” (pp. 20-21). [read post]
26 May 2017, 6:29 am
Those laws prohibit states from removing “the name of any person from the official list of voters registered to vote in an election for Federal office by reason of the person’s failure to vote,” but provide that a state must remove a voter if the voter (1) does not respond to a confirmation notice the state sends them and (2) then does not vote in the next two general federal elections. [read post]
