Search for: "In the Matter of Faith A. F." Results 541 - 560 of 2,407
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Mar 2018, 7:50 am by Katherine Kiziah
Eve, Northern District of Illinois) MDL No. 2818 – In Re: General Motors Air Conditioning Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (Transferred to the Honorable Matthew F. [read post]
27 Apr 2023, 9:01 pm by Neil H. Buchanan
My columns have treated the controversy as an intellectual battle—a matter of great political consequence, to be sure, but nonetheless a bit bloodless—whereas in fact the stakes in this situation are anything but abstractions or merely a matter of lively debate. [read post]
2 Sep 2020, 1:53 am by Florian Mueller
He didn't say so, but made it sound like a one-in-a-million outlier.If the government coalition parties (CDU, CSU, SPD) can easily find common ground, they can accelerate the process and make a formal decision in a matter of months. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 6:06 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Bic Pen Corp., 725 F.2d 1240, 1248 (9th Cir. 1984).)Note: Whoa, Nelly! [read post]
4 Sep 2019, 3:01 pm by JoAnn Hymel
However, the Fifth Circuit has held that relief from a late claim is not a matter of right. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 12:00 am
, (InDret, Vol. 3, 2008).Andrew F. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:31 pm by K&L Gates
  Among the more notable amendments are the addition of Rule 13-5(9) allowing a court to issue a protective order which would allow for cost allocation and other remedies to avoid undue burden, etc. related to the discovery of electronically stored information; revisions to Rule 13-9(d) addressing the format of production; the addition of Rule 13-14(d) which closely, but not exactly, follows Federal Rule 37(f), and provides safe harbor for the loss of information resulting from… [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 2:45 pm
  And, as a factual matter, the First upholds the finding that the US Attorneys Office acted in good faith. [read post]
12 Sep 2006, 11:28 am
Pho, 433 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2006), in which the First Cir. held that "the district court erred as a matter of law when it constructed a new sentencing range based on the categorical substitution of a 20:1 crack-to-powder ratio for the 100:1 ratio embedded in the sentencing guidelines. [read post]