Search for: "Defendant Doe 2"
Results 5181 - 5200
of 40,587
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2024, 8:49 am
§ 33-24.41.1(b)(2) didn’t preclude the entry of summary judgment on behalf of the defendant in this case. [read post]
3 May 2007, 6:00 am
LEXIS 483 (May 2, 2007).* Defendant's admission he had a gun in the car was sufficient basis for a vehicle frisk, and that led to a plain view. [read post]
18 Mar 2014, 5:27 pm
Defendant contends that the plaintiff's complaint does not state a cause of action and merits sanctions as frivolous. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 8:04 pm
The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election. 2. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 7:24 am
Hirst 18-1097 Issues: (1) Whether a state law is exempt from the dormant commerce clause merely because it does not discriminate against interstate commerce; and (2) whether a state law is exempt from the dormant commerce clause merely because Congress has passed a federal statute saving the law from pre-emption under that statute. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 6:13 am
How does this situation arise? [read post]
11 Jun 2008, 10:01 pm
After all, if the rule is not given full effect what difference does it make? [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 6:57 am
Subd. 2. [read post]
5 Jun 2016, 9:16 am
And it does so in two ways. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 6:57 am
In a recent decision dated July 2, 2009, a Manhattan Criminal Court judge dismissed the shoplifting, Petit Larceny and Criminal Possession of Stolen Property charges that the defendant faced. [read post]
19 Nov 2008, 5:39 pm
ED Tex is still tops at 29, with #2 and #3 New Jersey and ND Cal with 16 and 11 respectively.As readers may recall, TrollTracker used to slice this data different ways, including by number of defendants sued, on the assumption that number of defendants was a better indicator of the relative sizes of districts. [read post]
28 Jun 2009, 9:19 am
More important, the record evidence does not reveal whether Mr. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 3:00 am
Vigindustries, Inc., No. 10-1083, 2012 WL 5505095, at * 2 (D. [read post]
15 Nov 2014, 12:21 pm
"Unreasonable risk of danger to public safety" means an unreasonable risk that the defendant will commit a new violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code Section 667(e)(2)(C)(iv).How Long Does This Process Take? [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 7:44 am
There wasno infringement under § 271(e)(2)(A) because “the defendants’ANDAs [sought] approval to market the generic[drug] for contraceptive use, and there is no valid patenton the use of the drug for that purpose alone. [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 5:15 pm
At the outset, the Court does not find defendant to be credible. [read post]
3 Jul 2018, 12:21 pm
The statute does not implicate chill otherwise legitimate speech. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 4:10 pm
Does the defendant deserve to pay compensation to the plaintiff? [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 11:54 am
Locke, slip op. at 2. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 3:35 pm
The court does agree with the defendant, however, that the sentence imposed was illegal. [read post]
