Search for: "Roper v. No Named Defendants"
Results 21 - 40
of 58
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Aug 2017, 3:36 pm
So, this is an extension of the famous US Supreme Court case; Roper v. [read post]
6 Nov 2009, 7:10 am
This development, Gerstein writes, puts Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in a difficult position, as she was named as a defendant in the litigation. [read post]
1 Mar 2008, 11:25 am
Relying on Roper v. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 8:08 am
Roper v. [read post]
25 Sep 2007, 5:32 pm
Texas and Roper v. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 3:39 pm
Roper, 918 F.2d 885 (10th Cir. 1990); United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2018, 6:37 am
”) Roper v. [read post]
8 Dec 2006, 4:59 am
Roper v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 7:12 pm
In Roper v. [read post]
8 May 2018, 11:11 am
Roper, 445 U.S. 326, 339 (1980); see also Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U.S. at 476 (“Certification of a large class may so increase the defendant’s potential damages liability and litigation costs that he may find it economically prudent to settle and to abandon a meritorious defense. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 8:29 pm
So, too, in 1989 the Court appointed John Roberts, currently the Chief Justice, as amicus to defend the judgment below in United States v. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 10:00 pm
Roper & Twardowsky, LLC, Kansas Magistrate Judge James P. [read post]
18 Dec 2014, 7:08 am
Roper gets its fifth relist too. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 11:05 am
And finally, with a name you need a calculator to pronounce, Sigram Schindler Beteiligungsgesellschaft MBH v. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 5:01 am
See also Roper v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 12:23 pm
Rather, the record indicates that Deutsche Bank obtained and filed propriety of a defendant adopting a co-defendant's summary-judgment motion because Long does not raise the issue on appeal. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 7:22 am
Perry (the challenge to California’s Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2017, 4:08 pm
We had a case comment by Edmund Roper. [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Green, No. 06-2468 Conviction for distribution of cocaine is vacated and remanded for a new trial where: 1) the written statement of a confidential informant naming defendant as the person who had sold him drugs in a controlled buy was hearsay and not subject to an exception as a present-sense impression; 2) the prosecution could not use in its case-in-chief as substantive evidence the responses and reactions of defendant upon seeing a video purporting to depict him… [read post]
4 Oct 2019, 9:21 am
In paragraph one of her affidavit, Martin states:My name is Susan Martin, I am employed as Legal Collections Coordinator for Plaintiff. [read post]
