Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 6301 - 6320 of 29,830
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Mar 2008, 4:22 am
Dallo & Co., 391 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004)) with regard to the "famous marks" doctrine makes the matter ripe for Supreme Court review. [read post]
22 May 2017, 7:52 am by Dennis Crouch
Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574 (1990). [read post]
15 Jun 2016, 3:35 am by Evan M. Levow
In criminal cases, Rule 3:9-3(f) of the NJRC states that a defendant must enter a conditional plea of guilty in order “to appeal from the adverse determination of any specified pretrial motion. [read post]
22 Aug 2008, 4:23 am
KXD Technology, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2008 WL 3852719, No. 07-15310 (9th Cir. [read post]
30 Jul 2010, 7:19 am by robhealey
The Court in Griffin granted the defendant’s motion where they found that: a) the prejudice to the state was not articulated and will not be presumed; b) a timely motion to withdraw was filed two weeks after defendant pled guilty and more than a month before the scheduled sentencing hearing; c) defendant’s motion stated that he is not guilty and sets forth the reasons for plea withdrawal; d) defendant alleged that his attorney failed to properly… [read post]
4 May 2011, 4:30 am
Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-1001 (9th Cir. 2007), the defendants must produce enough evidence to allow a court to estimate with some certainty the actual amount in controversy. [read post]
29 Jul 2020, 1:12 pm by Jonathan F. Marshall
If you are charged with committing assault or another criminal offense in New Jersey, the dedicated attorneys of The Law Offices of Jonathan F. [read post]
2 Aug 2021, 11:32 am by Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
However, “[i]f the defendant has submitted evidence in opposition to the implementation of jurisdiction, ‘the plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and submit affirmative evidence supporting the exercise of jurisdiction. [read post]
9 Sep 2021, 7:28 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Baxter; 996 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 2021) You probably know that the court of appeals sent this case back for retrial on an initial interest confusion theory. [read post]