Search for: "Rules of Civil Procedure v. Rules"
Results 41 - 60
of 14,025
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2024, 7:00 am
After the district court certified three damages classes under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs had failed to carry their burden to present admissible evidence establishing how the challenged “All Natural” statement would mislead reasonable consumers acting reasonably. [read post]
14 May 2024, 10:15 pm
This includes documents recently disclosed as a result of the settlement of Penebaker v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 7:40 am
Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 4.04 lays out the proper process for service of a lawsuit in Tennessee. [read post]
14 May 2024, 6:36 am
In Cummings v. [read post]
14 May 2024, 4:30 am
However, in Bostock v. [read post]
13 May 2024, 10:10 am
When Gamboa filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to reopen the judgment in light of Ritenour’s abandonment, the district court rejected that request as well. [read post]
12 May 2024, 9:01 pm
With respect to QPDs, the Florida CFO is authorized to suspend or disqualify a QPD, or impose an administrative penalty upon the QPD, if the QPD fails to file the required attestation or no longer meets the definition of a QPD.[9] The Florida CFO is also authorized to request documents to verify the attestation provided by the QPD and, if the Florida CFO determines that an attestation submitted by a QPD is materially false, the Florida CFO is required to report such determination to the Florida… [read post]
12 May 2024, 1:42 pm
VILER, Appellants, v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 2:56 pm
The court concluded that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, a court may award attorneys’ fees incurred while defending an ex parte TRO when (1) the TRO caused “needless delay” and unnecessarily “increased the cost of litigation,” or (2) the TRO was obtained by pleadings that were not “well grounded in fact” or made after “reasonable inquiry. [read post]
10 May 2024, 10:38 am
The car owners in this case had argued that due process does give them a right to a prompt hearing under Mathews v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:01 am
We begin with the framework that dominated the discussion at oral argument: the civil rule in the 1982 Supreme Court case of Nixon v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 2:41 pm
(Reason)Today, in Culley v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 5:29 am
The ECHR refers to the case of Đurđević v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 1:58 pm
As a precaution, the Court concludes that the sealed docket entries and redactions should last the thirty-day period for appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a). [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
The New York Civil Liberties Union, Amicus Curiae, The New York City Bar Association, Amicus Curiae.Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
The New York Civil Liberties Union, Amicus Curiae, The New York City Bar Association, Amicus Curiae.Plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County (Frank P. [read post]
8 May 2024, 5:17 am
The plaintiff sees in this request the risk of a contrary outcome to the British decision, as the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Romanian procedure lacks clarity and predictability (ECHR, X. and Y. v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:22 am
Harlow v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:22 am
Harlow v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 5:22 am
Harlow v. [read post]
