Search for: "John's and Jane's Does"
Results 21 - 40
of 453
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
Thus, the complaint is dismissed as to John/Jane Does I-XX as well as NYSIF. [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 7:11 am
I thought I'd pass along a long excerpt from this amicus brief, which my students Samantha Frazier, Katelyn Taira, and Jacob Haas and I wrote on behalf of the First Amendment Coalition and myself; for more on the decision below, which indeed rejected pseudonymity, see here. [* * *] Summary of Argument John Doe is trying to punish Jane Doe … for accusing him of sexual assault. [read post]
12 Apr 2023, 6:13 am
§ 367.3, enacted in 2019, adds to that: A protected person who is a party in a civil proceeding may proceed using a pseudonym, either John Doe, Jane Doe, or Doe, for the true name of the protected person and may exclude or redact from all pleadings and documents filed in the action other identifying characteristics of the protected person. [read post]
8 Feb 2023, 8:37 am
Defendant Jane Doe 2 and Defendant Jane Doe 3 … stopped Plaintiffs … and instructed them to remove their hats…. 62. [read post]
18 Jan 2023, 5:01 am
" Outside of John Doe, Jane Doe, and Sue Roe, the complaint identifies almost every other individual with initials…. [read post]
9 Dec 2022, 4:02 pm
Jane Doe is well aware of John Doe's identity, as Jane Doe was party to the investigation process conducted by Tulane, during which his identity was disclosed. [read post]
9 Dec 2022, 10:29 am
As to reliance on a person's special worries related to possible stigma within his religious community, see the forthcoming Protecting People from Their Own Religious Communities: Jane Doe in Church and State. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 5:01 am
Indeed, even if a law school does want to say that one side is correct—again, something I'd recommend against, for reasons given in the University of Chicago's Kalven Report[1]—it can do so, while still stressing that it's important for people to hear both sides: Come hear John Peters and Jane Williams debate immigration policy! [read post]
31 Oct 2022, 11:02 am
MIT presumed the female complainant's story to be true (which it wasn't), and presumed John Doe not to be truthful (which wasn't the case) in order to avoid being found responsible. [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 5:01 am
Tex.): [Non-party Jane] Roe's earlier reports of sexual assault by Plaintiff John Doe prompted Defendant TCU's institution of Title IX disciplinary proceedings against him and, in turn, gave rise to this suit…. [read post]
5 Oct 2022, 7:28 am
This decision concerns Plaintiff's request to proceed anonymously as "Jane Doe," at the same time she has repeatedly, publicly identified the accused student-defendant—whom she alleges is a "rapist. [read post]
30 Sep 2022, 3:49 am
Text Copyright John L. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 5:17 am
From yesterday's decision of the First Circuit in Doe v. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 5:01 am
Here's Part I.A. [* * *] Let's begin by laying out the areas where this issue can arise, starting with pseudonymity in litigation. [read post]
17 Jun 2022, 5:00 am
-The court also found that the Plaintiff's Jane/John Doe averments in the Complaint satisfied the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 2005 in order to properly designate an unknown defendant by a Doe designation.As such, all of the Defendants Preliminary Objections were overruled.Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 7:11 am
Plaintiff's complaint does not include facts demonstrating that the Court has diversity jurisdiction of this action. [read post]
2 Jun 2022, 9:19 am
Plaintiffs state that Cisneros, Ceh, the Mesaros defendants, Park, and other Jane and John Does coordinated to wait for and surround the campaign bus. [read post]
26 May 2022, 10:05 pm
Claire Stern of Elle magazine interviews Jane Horvath, a lawyer who is the head of Apple's Privacy, Policy, and Regulatory team. [read post]
26 May 2022, 2:31 pm
From today's decision in Doe v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 5:01 am
[T]he Court GRANTS Jane Doe's motion as it relates to redacting the minor victims' names from the February 9, 2006 opinion. [read post]
