Search for: "Doe Defendants I through V" Results 5401 - 5420 of 12,268
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Aug 2022, 11:02 am by Camilla Hrdy
Two of the important scholars before me are Bernard Bell and Matt Herder.How I personally came to the conclusion that the Trade Secrets Act permits some disclosure of trade secrets by federal agencies is through my clinical work. [read post]
22 Oct 2013, 11:54 am by Bexis
  It does not mean “identical” or anything close to that. [read post]
8 Jul 2008, 1:30 am
March 31, 2008), discussed in ESAblawg (April 2, 2008), it does appear that judicial restraint is returning to the environmental jurisprudence of the Ninth Circuit, and that Federal agencies defending their ESA-related actions might, in the future, see greater success. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 5:01 am by Roger Parloff
In every bid to transfer venue that Capitol riot defendants have raised, the key precedent the government has cited in response has been the same: Haldeman v. [read post]
30 Nov 2021, 1:14 pm by Giles Peaker
The Court of Appeal concluded Like the FTT, though, I have concluded that, read naturally, paragraph 5 does not extend to litigation costs. [read post]
23 May 2017, 4:32 am by Guest Blogger
Does the national security context counsel hesitation?) [read post]
11 Aug 2020, 6:00 am by Guest Blogger
” And, at a similarly crucial point in Matal v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 2:49 pm by Kevin LaCroix
I welcome guest post submissions from responsible authors on topics of interest to this site’s readers. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 5:55 am
  I found the motion court's decision in this case by checking the New York Official Reports and using its Advanced Search tab or feature. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 9:08 pm by Stephen Bilkis
This case has wound its way, glacially, through the litigatory process over a period of nearly 20 years, during which a record exceeding 1,600 pages has been amassed. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 9:55 pm by Jeff Gamso
 To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show (1) that his lawyer's performance was objectively deficient (whatever that means) and (2) that it was prejudicial.Yesterday, I was bitching about Judy Lanzinger's question to Nathan Ray and about his answer during oral argument in State v. [read post]