Search for: "People v. Baker (2002)" Results 41 - 60 of 92
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Feb 2014, 9:06 am by Ritika Singh
Matt Danzer pored through the transcripts of yesterday’s military commissions motions hearing in U.S. v. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am by Deborah Heller
The district court granted the request for expert witness fees, but denied the personnel expense request finding that the phrase “all the expenses of the proceedings” was not specific and explicit to include such expenses due to the presumption under the “American Rule” that litigants pay their own attorneys’ fees (quoting Baker Botts L.L.P. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 4:30 am
It was big news that there will be a six hour return of The X-Files, a show that dazzled us from 1993 to 2002. [read post]
9 Apr 2011, 3:48 pm
(United), the creditor to whom Espinosa owed the student loan debt.[1] Id., at 34; see Rules 2002(b), (g)(2), 3015(d). [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 9:19 am by NL
Mr Arden [QC for Camden] referred also to the decision of the House of Lords in Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins [2002] AC 301, relating to the definition of “a dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling” in section 1 of the Housing Act 1988. [read post]
24 Feb 2013, 9:19 am by NL
Mr Arden [QC for Camden] referred also to the decision of the House of Lords in Uratemp Ventures Ltd v Collins [2002] AC 301, relating to the definition of “a dwelling-house let as a separate dwelling” in section 1 of the Housing Act 1988. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 4:00 am by Terry Hart
Edwin Baker, First Amendment Limits on Copyright, 55 Vanderbilt Law Review 891, 893 (2002).Reconciling What the First Amendment Forbids With What the Copyright Clause Permits: A Summary Explanation and Review, 66 Law and Contemporary Problems 225, 226 (2003).See Joseph Blocher, Amending the Exceptions Clause, 92 Minnesota Law Review 971, 980-82 (2008). [read post]
16 Jul 2009, 8:36 pm
We don't mind people saying we're full of it, we couldn't be litigators if we did, but that should be decided on the strength of our arguments, not on which side of the "v" we reside. [read post]