Search for: "Wait v. Second Judicial District Court"
Results 541 - 560
of 619
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Feb 2010, 6:30 pm
It’s not necessarily because I agree with the United States Supreme Court or the Second District California Appellate Court, either, when they said: [T]he use of this technique is itself something of an affront to the very dignity and decorum of judicial proceedings that the judge is seeking to uphold. [read post]
8 Feb 2010, 3:00 am
The section provides in its entirety as follows: On application by or for a member, the supreme court in the judicial district in which the office of the limited liability company is located may decree dissolution of a limited liability company whenever it is not reasonably practicable to carry… [read post]
December 29, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
29 Dec 2009, 5:50 pm
District Court in Birmingham. [read post]
December 29, 2009 – Environmental Law Settlements, Decisions, Regulatory Actions and Lawsuit Filings
29 Dec 2009, 5:46 pm
District Court in Birmingham. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 10:38 am
Judge Marrinan: The Second Judicial District includes only Ramsey County. [read post]
11 Dec 2009, 10:52 am
 The collateral order doctrine, progeny of the Court’s ruling in Cohen v. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 7:23 am
Second, in extraordinary circumstances—i.e., when a disclosure order “amount[s] to a judicial usurpation of power or a clear abuse of discretion,” or otherwise works a manifest injustice—a party may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 10:38 pm
Something around one third of all federal court cases in the Southern District of New York (New York City) involved plaintiffs seeking Rule B attachments. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 6:37 am
The case is Warney v. [read post]
27 Oct 2009, 10:35 am
Last week the Second District issued an opinion highlighting some strain on the courtesies generally connected with comity, and clarifying some jurisdictional boundaries in Kountze v. [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 11:32 am
(D) The user’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the user consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the user’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the user will accept service of process from the person who provided notification to the service… [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 11:32 am
(D) The user’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the user consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the user’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the user will accept service of process from the person who provided notification to the service… [read post]
14 Oct 2009, 11:32 am
(D) The user’s name, address, and telephone number, and a statement that the user consents to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located, or if the user’s address is outside of the United States, for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found, and that the user will accept service of process from the person who provided notification to the service… [read post]
12 Oct 2009, 3:06 pm
But wait! [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:14 am
(various citations and case-specific dates omitted).That started the ball rolling - at least for us.Not every New Jersey district court judge agreed with Thompson. [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 12:16 am
Twombly, which together made it easier for federal district courts to dismiss civil lawsuits. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 9:49 am
Judge Friedman's full opinion in US v. [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 3:00 am
After discussing the arguments presented by the parties, the court held that “Jindal substantially invoked the judicial processby waiting to move to arbitrate until the district court's pronouncements in the May 19 conference and that PPA was prejudiced thereby. [read post]
15 Jun 2009, 5:30 am
Kitson v. [read post]
14 Jun 2009, 10:05 am
See Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
