Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 6101 - 6120 of 29,826
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2019, 6:12 pm by Richard Hunt
Valdez Fine Foods, 724 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2013). [read post]
17 Mar 2019, 5:35 pm by INFORRM
Research and Resources Digital Platforms: The Need to Restrict Surveillance Capitalism (Australian PrivacyFoundation Submission to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) – Digital Platforms Inquiry – Preliminary Report, Graham Greenleaf, Anna Johnston, Bruce Arnold, David F. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 6:54 am by MBettman
Section (F) states that it shall be applied in any civil action “notwithstanding any prior rule of law of this state,” which specifically means the Kocisko decision. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 6:46 am by Rebecca Tushnet
In 2012, Defendant Tram Ho became a host of the show. [read post]
14 Mar 2019, 12:35 pm by Schachtman
Zimmer, Inc., 927 F.2d 124, 130 (2d Cir. 1991) (“Failure to warn claims purporting to sound in strict liability and those sounding in negligence are essentially the same. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 3:02 pm by Stan Gibson
Their concern on that point is that Defendant ‘can pursue its anti-trust defense, seeking competitive sales data for the hair extension industry, including sales records of HC1 and HC2 and IDC’ and that ‘[i]f DEFENSE COUNSEL pursue the anti-trust discovery, such discovery demand to HC1 and HC2 will pass through’ an attorney who is both in-house general counsel of IDC and ‘special in-house I.P. counsel’ of the corporate parent and HC2. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 6:49 am by Jonathan Holbrook
Jefferson, 911 F.3d 1290 (10th Cir., 2018) (affirming defendant’s robbery convictions, and noting that the “substantial” evidence of his guilt included not only surveillance videos and his admissions, but also a “Facebook post made after the January 9 robberies, which included a firearm emoji”);  Commonwealth v. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
** In Tulloch v Coughlin, 50 F.3d 114, the US Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, considered the differences between “absolute immunity” and “qualified immunity. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
** In Tulloch v Coughlin, 50 F.3d 114, the US Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, considered the differences between “absolute immunity” and “qualified immunity. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
To hold otherwise would accord defendants “an unfair advantage [and] impose an unfair detriment on [plaintiffs]” (American Mfrs., 704 F Supp 2d at 198). [read post]