Search for: "Doe v. Pryor"
Results 21 - 40
of 184
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2011, 9:01 pm
The decision by Judge Pryor touches on the same issue that was in play in the Lori Drew case: When does violating express conditions on computer use constitute a crime? [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 3:19 am
Here, in Fitzsimmons v Pryor Cashman LLP ; 2011 NY Slip Op 08280 ; Decided on November 17, 2011 ; Appellate Division, First Department the Court denied dismissal and the Appelate Division affirmed. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 11:10 pm
In Lampner v. [read post]
30 May 2018, 5:00 am
Judge William Pryor cited his opinion in Vergara for the proposition that Riley categorically “does not apply to searches at the border,” and he repeatedly declined to follow its reasoning. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 1:02 pm
United States v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 2:30 am
Shaygan, 676 F.3d 1237, 1238 (11th Cir. 2012) (Pryor, J., respecting the denial of rehearing en banc) (quoting United States v. [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 11:24 am
Johnson v. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 11:11 am
Indeed, Pryor specifically invoked New York v. [read post]
6 May 2020, 11:18 am
[The effort was spearheaded by Judges Katsas, Oldham, Pryor, and Thapar.] [read post]
26 May 2009, 11:34 am
Ricci v. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 3:02 am
New York does not have a similar statute. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 6:52 am
She referred to a 1979 Fifth Circuit decision, Blum v. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 4:01 am
” At The Register, Thomas Claburn looks at Impression Products, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Oct 2016, 7:40 am
See, e.g., Doe v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 12:29 pm
It's Judge Pryor vs. [read post]
12 Aug 2015, 4:41 pm
See Price v. [read post]
24 Mar 2014, 6:35 pm
So holds Rhein v. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 6:52 am
Hopkins and Oncale v. [read post]
7 Jul 2016, 2:08 pm
§ 924(e), as unconstitutionally vague, does not apply to the identical residual clause of the mandatory career offender guideline, U.S.S.G. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 3:53 am
Defendants admit that plaintiff’s case was transferred to the new firm, and Koval does not deny having worked on the case at either the old or new firm (see generally Antoniu v Ahearn, 134 AD2d 151 [1st Dept 1987]; HNH Intl., Ltd. v Pryor Cashman Sherman & Flynn LLP, 63 AD3d 534, 535 [1st Dept 2009]). [read post]
