Search for: "MATTER OF T F" Results 6381 - 6400 of 13,727
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Sep 2015, 1:28 pm by Graham Smith
  The Anderson report accepted that retention of weblog data would be useful, but went on: “[I]f any proposal is to be brought forward, a detailed operational case needs to be made out, and a rigorous assessment conducted of the lawfulness, likely effectiveness, intrusiveness and cost of requiring such data to be retained. [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 1:17 pm
See also Application of U.S. in Matter of Order Authorizing Use of a Pen Register, 538 F.2d 956, 960 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding that either Rule 41 authorizes a federal court to issue a warrant ordering the implementation of a pen register or else such power exists “as a matter of inherent judicial authority”). [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 4:22 pm by JD Hull
I don't mean a go-through-the-motions lawyer, a tell-you-what-the law-is lawyer (dipstick variety) or even a yeoman lawyer here. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 11:36 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
[I]t is in essence asuit to set aside the final decision of the board. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 6:36 am
Housing Auth. of Baltimore City, 984 F.2d 622 (4th Cir. 1993), didn’t deal with the FDA at all, but with “HUD’s 1992 Formal Utility Review. [read post]
3 Sep 2015, 3:26 am
’AG Wahl advised the CJEU to answer the questions referred by the Fővárosi Törvényszék as follows:(1) [Answering questions 1 and 2, correctly in this Kat's view] For the purposes of Article 4(3) ... [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 2:22 pm by Sarah Andropoulos
In Missouri (Rule 4-7.2(f) and comment), legal advertising materials must contain a “conspicuously” placed statement that “[t]he choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements,” with the notation that “[t]his disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Missouri. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 2:22 pm by Sarah Andropoulos
In Missouri (Rule 4-7.2(f) and comment), legal advertising materials must contain a “conspicuously” placed statement that “[t]he choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements,” with the notation that “[t]his disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Missouri. [read post]
2 Sep 2015, 12:44 pm by Greg Mersol
Uber will, of course, have a right to seek a Rule 23(f) discretionary appeal and will likely do so. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 7:14 pm by Kevin LaCroix
., 822 F.2d 1348, 1354 (4th Cir. 1987) (“In the absence of clear contract language or specific Congressional authorization in CERCLA, we decline to extend the obligations of insurance carriers beyond the well-illumined area of tangible injury and into the murky and boundless realm of injury prevention. [read post]
1 Sep 2015, 1:00 pm by Ron Coleman
Wainwright, 720 F.2d 1224, 1225 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 819 (1984). [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 2:10 pm
Dep’t of Agric., 499 F.3d 1036, 1043 (9th Cir. 2007) (site’s inclusion in the National Register of Historical Places evinces Forest Service’s secular motivations — “the preservation of a historic cultural area”); Kreisner v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 12:57 pm by Eric Goldman
* Emotional Distress Claim Doesn’t Support Fishing Expedition for Social Media Evidence * Facebook Password Exchange Between Parties to Litigation Results in Spoliation Debacle – Gatto v. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 10:50 am
And here’s a link to my sixth post, where I discuss various other inherent judicial powers, including the power to make common law in subject-matter “enclaves” like admiralty or foreign affairs, craft defenses, and design remedies. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 7:50 am
Whether you are drafting commercial agreements, or statutory law, dot your i’s, cross your t’s, and don’t forget your commas. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 3:26 am by Peter Mahler
Court Rules Calculation of Fair Market Value Under LLC Agreement’s Redemption Provision Needn’t Account for Capital Contributions Hampton v Turner, C.A. [read post]
30 Aug 2015, 11:32 am by Schachtman
As the Circuit court saw the matter: “[T]his approach is not the stuff of science. [read post]