Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 4161 - 4180 of 29,829
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Nov 2020, 6:34 pm by Dennis Crouch
 See In re McKee, 75 F.2d 991 (CCPA 1935); In re Johns, 70 F.2d 913 (CCPA 1934); In re Bruce, 56 F.2d 673 (CCPA 1932). [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 4:44 pm by Eugene Volokh
" But it added: [I]f defendants choose to proceed with a caucus meeting, we order the trial court to ensure the safety of the participants by imposing appropriate restrictions, based on the public health guidelines in effect at the time. [read post]
11 Nov 2020, 10:59 am by Eugene Volokh
["The state may restrict a convicted felon's right ... to possess a firearm," so a state may order a civil case defendant to stop saying things online about plaintiff that "severe[ly] emotional distress" that plaintiff.] [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 1:06 pm by admin
, 289 F. 2d 1230, 1239 (2003) (citing Daubert II for the proposition that peer review shows the research meets the minimal criteria for good science). [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 8:58 am by Eric Goldman
The defendant spent time and money defending against those mistakes, and the plaintiffs have no responsibility? [read post]
10 Nov 2020, 5:06 am by Schachtman
, 289 F. 2d 1230, 1239 (2003) (citing Daubert II for the proposition that peer review shows the research meets the minimal criteria for good science). [read post]
9 Nov 2020, 6:00 am by Beth Graham
Arbitration waiver is usually asserted against defendants who try out federal court before seeking to arbitrate. [read post]
6 Nov 2020, 10:48 am by Andrew Hamm
” In 2019, the Department of Health and Human Services issued its rule on the ground that “[i]f a Title X project refers for … abortion as a method of family planning, it is a program ‘where abortion is a method of family planning. [read post]
In a motion for rehearing, Lynch’s public defender wrote, “[i]f any of the photographs of the other potential matches from the facial recognition program resembles the drug seller or Appellant then clearly there was a Brady/discovery violation and Appellant should be granted a new trial. [read post]