Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 6141 - 6160 of 29,829
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jul 2022, 9:01 am by Steven Cohen
  Hix-Hernandez filed suit against Ford Motor, claiming that the battery was defectively secured in the compartment of the F-150 and that the design of the battery restraint in the F-150 was flawed. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 5:38 am
Debuse, 289 F.3d at 1074-75 (holding that where the defendant "chose to reenter his house simply for his own convenience[,] [a]llowing reentry on the condition that the officers accompany him was reasonable"); .... [read post]
3 May 2010, 5:13 am
A computer is a personal effect, see, e.g, Andrus, 483 F.3d at 718-20 (analogizing a computer to a container). [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 2:22 pm by Jon Sands
[Ed. note: This case came from the FPD Arizona office]Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and two gun counts. [read post]
8 Sep 2016, 2:02 pm by The Law Offices of John Day, P.C.
Defendant moved to dismiss the case based on the lack of pre-suit notice. [read post]
18 May 2019, 5:35 am by Gregory B. Williams
Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970) and gave the Plaintiff’s forum choice paramount consideration in balancing the Jumara factors. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 7:53 am by wovermyer
This court in [United States v.Gibbs, 506 F.3d 479, 488 (6th Cir. 2007)] held that the district court’s ruling constituted plain error because the explicit language of U.S.S.G. [read post]
12 Feb 2011, 7:03 am
Defendant was arrested for identity fraud, and officers looked in his cell phone, and that information ended up in the search warrant. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 9:26 am by lennyesq
P. 4(f)(3) allows a judge to order a means of service of process so long as it is “(1) not prohibited by international agreement; and (2) comports with constitutional notions of due process. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 8:27 am by Jon Sands
Under both an objective (what others would think) and subjective (actual bias) test, set out in Holland, 519 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2008), there was no plain error to require recusal. [read post]