Search for: "In Re Lingle"
Results 41 - 53
of 53
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2022, 4:14 am
Lingling Wei, Brian Spegele and Wenxin Fan report for the Wall Street Journal. [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 6:26 am
. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Aloha, I bring you greetings from the land of Midkiff, the land of Lingle. [read post]
1 Oct 2009, 2:45 pm
” [Note: The dissent disagreed on this point, contending that the City’s ordinance did not “take” anything from the owners, since the City’s ordinance was merely a re-enactment of a County rent control ordinance in effect when the plaintiffs bought the mobile home park was subjected to rent control.] [read post]
13 Dec 2024, 5:13 am
Lingling Wei and Alex Leary report for the Wall Street Journal. [read post]
8 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
Rory Little is a Professor of Law at U.C. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 4:30 am
“I think that you’re about to get to the point where one side or the other will be successful,” said a senior NATO official. [read post]
25 Jan 2007, 12:48 am
Accord, e.g., In re Orthopedic Bone Screw Products Liability Litigation, 193 F.3d 781, 789-90 (3d Cir. 1999); In re Shigellosis Litigation, 647 N.W.2d 1, 10 (Minn. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
., 256 F.3d 1013, 1021 (10th Cir. 2001) (wrong to “construe [a treater’s] ‘heeding’ an adequate warning to mean [s/he] would have given the warning”) (applying Oklahoma law); In re Diet Drug Litigation, 895 A.2d 480, 490-91 (N.J. [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 11:03 pm
(citing Lingle v. [read post]
25 Aug 2010, 11:29 am
Supreme Court Decision, Lingle v. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 4:38 am
Lingle, 847 F. 2d 90 (3rd Cir. 1998)(reversing sanctions because counsel had no duty to label his argument as seeking to overrule existing law, and questioning “duty of candor,” but declining to answer whether a failure to cite adverse precedent is sanctionable: “We agree with those observations and hold that counsel may not be found to have violated Rule 11 merely for failing to ‘label’ the argument advanced. [read post]
26 Mar 2009, 2:36 am
We're not going to digest all 124 pages of the majority and concurring opinions, just hit the highlights. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 10:32 am
The Interplay between the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause: Is the Supreme Court’s Test for “Public Use” Merely Rational Basis? [read post]
