Search for: "B. v. S."
Results 601 - 620
of 52,334
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2017, 3:46 pm
I think it's abundantly clear that there's no controlling California Supreme Court precedent that governs the issue as to whether California requires the (b)(3) prerequisites to be met even in (b)(2) -- or, for that matter, (b)(1) -- cases.So there's flexibility there.And there's substantial reason to make the rules different. [read post]
5 Jul 2024, 12:00 am
Donald B. [read post]
7 Mar 2022, 12:13 pm
[Yevhen V says likely yes.] [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 4:00 am
In Hefczyc v. [read post]
15 Jun 2011, 4:43 am
Munger appealed and the Appellate Division reinstated that branch of her petition seeking reimbursement for Medicare Part B premium payments Ruling that the issue of the school district's obligation to reimburse Munger and her co-plaintiffs for their Medicare part B premiums was not decided in the prior arbitration proceeding, the Appellate Division held that the arbitrator's award did not have preclusive effect on Munger's Article 78… [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 4:00 am
The case of the day, Chamberlain v. [read post]
24 Jun 2011, 4:37 pm
FLFMC, LLC v. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 5:00 am
In SEC v. [read post]
2 Mar 2009, 10:31 am
In another recent Section 16(b) case, Huppe v. [read post]
17 Aug 2023, 7:44 am
Belkaniya v. [read post]
22 Feb 2011, 8:35 am
Specifically, section 1B1.10(b)(2)(B) states that [...] [read post]
13 Nov 2007, 4:49 am
APPEAL/JURISDICTIONUnited States v. [read post]
31 Dec 2010, 6:46 am
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) provides an exception to the rule against hearsay for A statement that: (A) a reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made,... [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 5:55 am
Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) provides that Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the... [read post]
18 May 2020, 4:15 am
The Federal Circuit’s recent Uniloc v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 6:00 pm
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded the Tax Court’s determination of a partnership’s value as a going concern in Estate of Natalie B. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 7:28 am
Since then, the legal landscape was changed considerably by the Supreme Court’s May decision in Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
17 Aug 2009, 9:02 am
This count carried a ten-year mandatory minimum - the usual (b)(1)(B) five-year term, doubled due to Parker’s prior drug felony conviction. [read post]
5 Aug 2008, 7:43 am
Per Clark v. [read post]
21 Apr 2007, 3:03 am
Westlake argued that Larson's opinions, articulated in the Ohio state litigation, are relevant to the Kentucy case and thus discoverable pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) and 45(c)(3)(B)(ii). [read post]
