Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 6201 - 6220 of 29,831
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2010, 2:07 am by John Steele
Patrick Malone and Jon Bauer offer this article arguing that secret settlements may violate rule 3.4(f) and 5.6(b). [read post]
25 Aug 2015, 7:30 am by Robert Kreisman
The request is considered to have been served at the first Rule 26(f) conference. [read post]
16 May 2011, 1:04 pm by Lovechilde
As the Columbia study reflects, federal courts have often been a critical safeguard for capital defendants after their cases have been rejected in state court. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 10:01 pm by Evan Brown (@internetcases)
Kaspersky, 568 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2009), in which the court found that Section 230 immunity applied in the anti-malware context. [read post]
22 Jul 2021, 9:05 pm by Dan Flynn
“In order to effect defendants’ future compliance, by making them aware of the seriousness of their violations and the consequences for future violations, defendants are ordered to pay to the United States, within 30 days of the date of entry of this Order — and pursuant to written instructions that the United States will provide to defendants—a fine of $250,000, or face further monetary and other penalties, possibly including imprisonment of… [read post]
Cingular Wireless, 553 F.3d 913 (5th Cir. 2008) the Fifth Circuit determined this approach was available in only limited circumstances. [read post]
20 Feb 2011, 3:43 am by PaulKostro
United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. [read post]