Search for: "Doe Defendants I through V" Results 6201 - 6220 of 12,270
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2015, 6:45 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Court of Appeals ruling does not tell us what happened in this case, but this comes from the district's post-trial ruling:On September 26, 2009, Rogich, a member of the Bureau of Special Operations (BSO), participated in the arrest of the defendant. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 4:50 pm by INFORRM
 Specifically, with respect to Count I, Defendants argue that tracking Troeckler’s vehicle did not constitute a private matter or private fact. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 3:11 am by Marie-Andree Weiss
Arne Svenson, (2015 NY Slip Op 03068).Do I See A Privacy Bill? [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 1:05 am by Poloko Hiri - competition winner
(v) Where it is established that the defendant’s activities constitute a nuisance, the prima facie position is that an injunction should be granted and the legal burden is on the defendant to show why it should not. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 4:22 am by SHG
“It does not follow,” because . . . [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 12:00 am
I hope other defendants get as lucky. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 11:21 am
Defendant asserts that he did so for reasons of artistic expression; he obscured his subjects’ faces, seeking to comment on the “anonymity” of urban life, where individuals only reveal what can be seen through their windows. [read post]
10 Apr 2015, 10:53 am
It is only reasonable to demand that the truth about both incidents come out through an impartial and professional investigation, speedily and the guilty be prosecuted. [read post]