Search for: "Jane Does 1-3"
Results 521 - 540
of 824
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2013, 2:04 pm
It is also known as theBechdel/Wallace test,[1] the Bechdel rule,[2] Bechdel's law,[3] or the Mo Movie Measure.[4] Well he's right, and it's new to me, but I want to plug it into a larger matrix about women-talking-about-men-talking-about women and suchlike. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 5:57 pm
You must itemize to take this deduction, found at line 23 on Schedule A. 3. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 11:22 am
You’re Jane Smith, SSN 123-45-6789, born on January 1, 1970. [read post]
18 Oct 2013, 7:23 am
11-1: the Court’s Achilles heel The stand-out message emerging fro [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:01 pm
Jones filed a complaint as a Jane Doe plaintiff, and at an evidentiary hearing on August 15, 2010, she entered her true name as she filed for a default judgment against “the dirty.com. [read post]
29 Aug 2013, 9:46 am
The Circuit does not appear to have weighed in on the topic. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 12:44 pm
Imagine a 22-year-old defendant named Jane Doe. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 6:02 am
,’ or as`Jane Doe. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 9:25 pm
In this example, Brian has an interest in the property on the death of the will-maker, he does not get possession until Jane’s death. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 6:22 am
Break 3-4 p.m. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 6:58 pm
Once the data is on the web, where does it reside? [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 8:22 am
Day 1: In the beginning (San Francisco to Santa Cruz – 82.5 miles) At mile 0. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 12:28 pm
The suit has also named several Jane Does as defendants, a legal tactic commonly used as a placeholder when the identities of defendants are unknown. [read post]
6 Jun 2013, 6:16 am
Table of Contents Section 1: Use of Fictitious Names or Pseudonyms in Connecticut Courts Table 1: John or Jane Doe Defendants in Civil Matters Table 2: John or Jane Doe Defendants in Summary Process Matters Section 2: Use of Fictitious Business Names in Connecticut Table 3: Use of Fictitious Business Names Section 3: Criminal Impersonation in Connecticut Published: 6/6/2013 9:20 AM [read post]
27 May 2013, 6:20 am
Free speech rights aside, professional women . . . do not need the [Jane Does] of the planet eroding their hard earned respect in the marketplace. [read post]
24 May 2013, 6:20 pm
In my discussions elsewhere about the PGP demonstrations, some have suggested that re-identification requires little or no ethical justification where (1) participants have been warned about the risk of re-identification; (2) participants have given blanket consent to all research uses of the data they make publicly available; and/or (3) the re-identification researchers are scholars rather than commercial or criminal actors. [read post]
15 May 2013, 3:54 pm
John Does 1-23 Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-00841-SEB-DKLFile Date: Monday, June 18, 2012Plaintiff: Malibu Media, LLCPlaintiff Counsel: Paul J. [read post]
4 May 2013, 12:06 pm
Jane Bambauer, Is Data Speech? [read post]
1 May 2013, 1:36 pm
Cooley Law School (Cooley) filed a complaint in Ingham County against Defendant John Doe 1 (Doe 1) alleging defamation arising from statements that Doe 1 made on a website that, under a pseudonym, criticized Cooley. [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 9:36 am
There were also several resolved complaints, including: Mr Charles Tubbs v Daily Mail, No clause specified, 29/04/2013; Dr John Little v The Daily Telegraph, Clause 1, 26/04/2013; Mrs Deborah Farrell v That’s Life, Clause 1, 25/04/2012; Jessica Westwood v The Mail on Sunday, Clause 1, 25/04/2013; Neil Turner v The Daily Telegraph, Clause 1, 25/04/2013; Ms Judy Gibbons v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 25/04/2013; A woman v Daily Mail, Clause 1,… [read post]
