Search for: "In Re Katz"
Results 481 - 500
of 1,318
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Jul 2015, 3:00 am
In re Askin, 47 F.3d 100 (U.S. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 1:22 pm
They’re searching the card to find out. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 6:23 am
In re AbbVie Inc. [read post]
27 Jul 2015, 6:25 am
In re Askin, 47 F.3d 100 (U.S. [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 9:10 am
I suspect we're a long way out from saying any one vendor's technology is going to transform law practice on the whole [read post]
8 Jul 2015, 5:08 am
We’re doomed. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 4:38 am
They’re rapists. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 4:38 am
They’re rapists. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 9:17 am
. * Katz v. [read post]
18 Jun 2015, 7:29 am
Dan Katz in this project – are realistic about how Watson best helps do legal work today. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 8:58 am
(See here (Lubet’s original book review in The New Republic), here (Goffman’s reply), here and here (Lubet’s response to Goffman’s reply), here (UCLA sociologist’s Jack Katz’s comments), and here (Lubet’s rejoinder to Katz).) [read post]
18 May 2015, 8:08 am
In re Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc. [read post]
17 May 2015, 4:29 am
H/T Walter Katz Copyright © 2015 Simple Justice NY, LLC This feed is for personal, non-commercial and Newstex use only. [read post]
11 May 2015, 11:46 am
Briefs have now been filed in the very interesting Katz v. [read post]
6 May 2015, 5:03 am
The question is loosely relates to the Katz “reasonable expectation of privacy” test, since we do not, if you’re a judge, have a reasonable expectation of privacy in information in the hands of third parties. [read post]
5 May 2015, 12:01 pm
The unreasonableness in society’s eyes dooms Davis’s position under Katz. [read post]
30 Apr 2015, 7:41 am
I know a number of these people (Katz, Chandler, Lippe), and as they likely know, I tend to think that they’re right, in broad terms, about legal tech and where the legal profession is headed, even while I’m not persuaded by the celebratory tone of some of the rhetoric (my paper on that is here). [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 8:58 am
Katz. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 6:00 am
In re El Paso Pipeline Partners L.P. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 4:07 am
Update: As brought to my attention by Walter Katz, the Court of Appeals decision holding the South Carolina only requires a single brake light was subsequently reversed by the South Carolina Supreme Court. [read post]
