Search for: "Doe Defendants 1-10, Inclusive" Results 401 - 420 of 763
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Oct 2017, 4:00 am by Emma Kohse
On October 10, the same day that the Supreme Court vacated IRAP, the original plaintiffs in Hawaii v. [read post]
25 Sep 2017, 3:32 pm by Wolfgang Demino
Yet, Spokeo also confirmed that in some cases, a violation of a statutory right does amount to a concrete harm, even where that harm is intangible. [read post]
18 Sep 2017, 4:54 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“The plaintiffs served the complaint in Action No. 1 on January 20, 2016, and the complaint in Action No. 2 on May 26, 2015, alleging that the defendants improperly diverted approximately $10 million rightfully belonging to the plaintiffs from numerous real estate investment accounts and escrow accounts maintained for the plaintiffs’ benefit. [read post]
24 Aug 2017, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
”The proposed measure goes on to delineate three new states: “Northern California” (consisting essentially of the San Francisco Bay Area counties, those counties extending eastward of Bay Area, and everything north to the Oregon border); “California” (consisting of the coastal counties from Monterey to Los Angeles, inclusive); and “Southern California” (consisting of Orange and San Diego Counties, the Inland Empire, and vast majority of the Central… [read post]
13 Aug 2017, 12:22 pm by Giles Peaker
I am satisfied that the total amount referred to under step 1 does not exclude the element of Housing Benefit. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 1:50 pm by Giles Peaker
Under Islington’s allocation scheme, she was assessed as having 110 points (100 residence points for living in the borough for 3 of the last 5 years, and 10 ‘homeless points’). [read post]
12 Apr 2017, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
  Unlike Beard, Klarman does not focus only on the Framers, and he avoids Beard’s missteps. [read post]