Search for: "Jane Does 1-3" Results 461 - 480 of 824
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 May 2015, 3:46 pm
The court was careful to explain that it appreciated the seriousness of the harms the plaintiffs alleged: ``To avoid any misunderstanding, let me make it clear that the court is not unsympathetic to the tragic plight described by Jane Doe No. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, and Jane Doe No. 3. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 7:10 am by Jeralyn
The federal judge presiding over the never ending victims rights lawsuit seeking to overturn a federal non-prosecution agreement against Jeffrey Epstein yesterday ruled Jane Doe #3, aka Virginia Roberts, and Jane Doe #4 cannot join Jane Does 1 and... [[ This is a content summary only. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 4:09 pm by Altman & Altman
The plaintiff, Jane Doe 2, claims that the clergyman sexually assaulted her over 60 times. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 12:27 pm by Sebastian Brady
In his speech, he roundly condemned the nuclear deal being negotiated between Iran and the P5+1. [read post]
1 Mar 2015, 6:17 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
FCC vote 3-2 to uphold net neutrality. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 8:34 am by Michael Lumer
John and Jane Does, the plaintiffs were OWS demonstrators who marched onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge. [read post]
11 Feb 2015, 5:01 am by Terry Hart
This is due primarily to the idea expression distinction. 6Accord Jane Ginsburg, Authors and Users in Copyright, 45 J. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 11:01 am by Michael Lowe
Jane Does #3 and #4 File Motion to Join With Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Recently Jane Does #3 and #4 came forward and filed their Joinder Motion in this CVRA lawsuit. [read post]
28 Jan 2015, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
Where does such hostility come from? [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 7:38 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Under the legal standard, "the permissibility of fees charged for the use of state facilities is evaluated under three prongs, which ask whether the fee (1) is based on some fair approximation of use of the facilities, (2) is not excessive in relation to the benefits conferred, and (3) does not discriminate against interstate commerce. [read post]