Search for: "47 DEFENDANTS"
Results 4781 - 4800
of 4,839
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2007, 9:17 pm
MySpace raised 47 U.S.C. [read post]
15 Feb 2007, 5:10 am
IMCERA Group, Inc., 47 F.3d 47, 53 (2d Cir.1995), concluding that the Second Circuit has not abandoned Acito despite the fact that it “appeared to express some dissatisfaction with the Acito formulation” in Novak v. [read post]
15 Feb 2007, 12:25 am
Suzuki Motor Corp., 996 S.W.2d 47, 63 (Mo. 1999); Marsh v. [read post]
14 Feb 2007, 6:00 am
Although Plaintiff has been given the opportunity to conduct discovery regarding class certification - as well as an extension of discovery on that issue, at Plaintiff's request - Plaintiff has provided no evidence that either Defendant or NY Essex has ever sent more than one fax arguably in violation of the [Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 9:41 am
These, too, are preempted by 47 USC 230. [read post]
6 Feb 2007, 1:58 am
Today and tomorrow I am attending the American Health Lawyer Association's Hospitals and Health Systems Law Institute in Las Vegas where I am speaking on Healthcare Blogging and Web 2.0. [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 1:34 pm
Twelve produced exonerations, nine affirmed the defendant's guilt, and six are pending. [read post]
5 Feb 2007, 7:43 am
Yet he defends the others. [read post]
3 Feb 2007, 7:31 pm
Today, there are 47 people on federal death row — more than double the number six years ago — and [seven come from] a state without a death statute of its own.... [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 1:20 am
Our own cases refer to "percentage of the fund," Wal-Mart Stores, 396 F.3d at 121 (emphasis supplied), and "percentage of the recovery," Goldberger, 209 F.3d at 47 (emphasis supplied). [read post]
1 Feb 2007, 6:54 am
The seven women and five men decided that defendant Ronell Wilson should die. [read post]
1 Feb 2007, 12:01 am
Jan. 4, 2007):Plaintiff Lawrence McGaughey ("Plaintiff" or "McGaughey") has brought this putative class action against Defendant Richard Treistman ("Defendant" or "Treistman") pursuant to the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 12:48 am
And if you defend FDA-regulated manufacturers, you should hate it too - unless you enjoy hearing your client called a criminal, or worse. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 9:58 pm
Jared defended on 47 USC 230(c)(2)(B), which says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of...any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material [that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable]. [read post]
19 Jan 2007, 5:49 am
In 14 of those cases, the jury was either all-white or had only one black juror although the counties where the cases were tried were between 33% to 47% black. [read post]
18 Jan 2007, 5:26 am
Based on the evidence presented, the federal court concluded "that plaintiffs' denials and/or conclusory declarations that they do not recall receiving copies of the arbitration provisions are insufficient to defeat defendant's motion to compel. [read post]
10 Jan 2007, 5:45 pm
Even though Dan doesn't like 47 USC 230 as much as I do, we all benefit from it in this case. [read post]
10 Jan 2007, 7:38 am
According to the Tax Prof Blog: The latest twist in the KPMG tax shelter saga: Federal District Judge Kaplan on Monday filed a 47-page brief in the Second Circuit defending his decision last summer to hold a separate civil proceeding to determine whether KPMG should pay the indicted 16 former KPMG partners' legal fees. [read post]
10 Jan 2007, 4:10 am
The latest twist in the KPMG tax shelter saga: Federal District Judge Kaplan on Monday filed a 47-page brief in the Second Circuit defending his decision last summer to hold a separate civil proceeding to determine whether KPMG should pay... [read post]
9 Jan 2007, 5:25 am
As the court observed:Contrary to defendants' argument, article 47 (i) (J) does not bar any part of this action because the lease does not require Duane Reade to fully insure itself against the business interruption and property damage losses for which it seeks recovery, and Duane Reade's insurance in fact does not cover such losses ... [read post]
