Search for: "John Does, 1-2"
Results 5781 - 5800
of 10,085
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2013, 9:00 am
Here are two additional thoughts provoked by the book: 1. [read post]
1 May 2013, 8:06 am
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 9:45 am
A subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal failed, with a judgment (CA 2) issued on March 2, 2006, confirming the convictions. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 6:17 am
So what does all this mean? [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 4:20 pm
By John W. [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… [read post]
29 Apr 2013, 3:08 am
The only relief she granted Poole was on his claim for an accounting, which the court found was authorized by NYLPA § 99(1)(b). [read post]
26 Apr 2013, 5:16 am
He noted that the “search” for which the Government seeks authorization is actually two-fold: (1) a search for the Target Computer itself, and (2) a search for digital information stored on (or generated by) that computer. [read post]
25 Apr 2013, 10:25 am
A Happy Place Filled With Brotherly LoveHere is the full list, in order of ranking:1) San Jose, CA;2) San Francisco, CA;3) Washington, DC;4) Chicago, IL;5) San Diego, CA;6) Riverside, CA;7) Philadelphia, PA;8) Houston, TX;9) Phoenix, AZ;10) Boston, MAInteresting that Philly, Boston and DC made the list, but the Big Apple did not! [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 10:36 am
For an employee to win a First Amendment retaliation case against his or her government employer, the employee must prove among other things (1) that his or her speech was not on a trivial or mundane workplace issue but instead dealt with a matter of “public concern,” and (2) that the employee spoke as a private citizen, i.e., outside of his or her “official duties. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 12:43 pm
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted cases. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 7:05 am
For two reasons 1. [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 10:46 am
Scenario 2. [read post]
22 Apr 2013, 4:11 am
2. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 10:09 am
So what does that lead me to believe? [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 8:25 am
John V. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 6:18 am
Broadcast Corporation of New Zealand, 1989) RPC (1989) 106 (22). 2. [read post]
21 Apr 2013, 6:06 am
John Herman of BuzzFeed.com. [read post]
