Search for: "47 DEFENDANTS" Results 481 - 500 of 4,825
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Mar 2010, 7:13 am by Jonathan Marshall
Not long ago a jury heard the initial statement from a defendant regarding a July 2008 fatal drug-related DUI crash that left a motorcycle rider dead following a head-on wreck along Route 47. [read post]
20 Nov 2011, 9:00 pm
Foster, 634 F.3d [243] at 246-47 [(4th Cir. 2011)]. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 10:25 am by Eric
Carome: defendants can ask the judge to restrict discovery to just this issue. [read post]
30 Apr 2010, 12:09 pm by Eric
For more on the interplay between marketing representations and 230, see, e.g.: * 47 USC 230 and Consumer Protection Talk Notes * 47 USC 230 Talk at Fordham * Ninth Circuit Mucks Up 47 USC 230 Jurisprudence....AGAIN!? [read post]
4 Jun 2010, 1:22 pm by George
Police said Henry Hams, 47, put a 50-year-old Cook County prosecutor into a “choking headlock” this morning at the criminal courthouse at 26th and California, the Chicago Sun-Times reported. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 1:06 pm
 If anything, to exclude a section 10851 conviction based on the taking of a low-value vehicle because the defendant’s intent was not culpable enough would contravene Proposition 47’s overarching purpose of reducing the punishment for low-level nonviolent property crimes. [read post]
22 May 2009, 1:18 am
   But the defendants billed for care delivered to clients who were, in fact, dead. [read post]
25 Mar 2024, 10:25 pm by Evan Brown
Section 230 immunity Section 230(c) (at 47 U.S.C. 230(c)) provides that “[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. [read post]
12 Oct 2006, 8:16 am
(Doc. # 14 ¶ ¶ 47, 55, 60, 67, 78 .)Plaintiff argues that Defendant has conceded that Plaintiff alleged cognizable damages when it removed the case to federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, which permits removal of class actions when the aggregate matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. [read post]