Search for: "Doe Defendants 1-50"
Results 641 - 660
of 4,038
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Oct 2019, 11:01 am
” SLUSA’s definition of a “covered class action” includes a “mass action” provision that bars lawsuits predicated on state-law claims that: “(1) are filed in or pending in the same court; (2) involve common legal or factual questions; (3) seek damages for more than 50 persons; and (4) are joined, consolidated, or otherwise proceed as a single action for any purpose. [read post]
2 Apr 2011, 10:13 am
The prosecution does not have to prove that the defendant was “the” cause of the accident. [read post]
12 Oct 2015, 3:34 am
Dobson, supra.The outcome of the trial was that “the jury found Defendants guilty on Counts 1, 5 through 8, 11, and 12. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 6:02 am
BennettHeld: A covenant not to compete is enforceable even where the competing former employee does not solicit his former employer's clients or use its confidential information if the scope of the restrictive covenant is limited to reasonable temporal and geographical limits, the employer is protecting legitimate business interests with the covenant, the employee has unique and specialized skills, there is no undue hardship on the employee to comply with the restriction and the public… [read post]
28 Feb 2020, 9:41 am
Later codified at 50 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 1:15 pm
What does this mean for anyone arrested and charged on federal criminal law violations? [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 3:52 am
The judge didn’t buy it, and neither does the 8th, especially since Penix had been less than diligent in discovery. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 2:59 pm
The first foreigner convicted of phishing in the United States was sentenced to 50 months in federal prison Monday. [read post]
31 Oct 2006, 6:38 am
In this case, $79.5 million does not strike us as unreasonable. [read post]
22 Jul 2009, 9:37 am
Under the New Act, the liability of joint tortfeasors is several unless: - a Defendant is greater than 50% responsible; or - a joint tortfeasor acted willfully and wantonly or with reckless disregard, in which case all Defendants are jointly and severally responsible. [read post]
18 Jun 2010, 9:45 am
The only drawback is that 50% of any recovery must go to the federal government. [read post]
24 Aug 2021, 5:03 am
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the use of the EUTM by the Defendant had become misleading within the meaning of Art 58(1)(c) UMV, and the EUTM was declared revoked. [read post]
24 Aug 2021, 5:03 am
Accordingly, the Supreme Court found that the use of the EUTM by the Defendant had become misleading within the meaning of Art 58(1)(c) UMV, and the EUTM was declared revoked. [read post]
19 Oct 2023, 1:28 pm
” Kardashian’s second post:Ethereum Max "burned ... literally 50% of their admin wallet"This was allegedly false/misleading because it wasn’t an organic sharing of what friends had told her, but paid promotion, and also because the content of the message created the false impression that the EMAX Tokens were scarce because it indicated that the founders had “burned” “50% of their Admin Wallet. [read post]
8 Mar 2007, 5:20 am
§768.1256); Indiana (Code §34-20-5-1); Kansas (Stat. [read post]
8 Feb 2013, 11:52 am
” Kallal, slip op. at 1. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 2:04 pm
The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule “A,” an owner of eyewear brands brought a Lanham Act action against hundreds of defendants alleged to infringe on its trademarks via a thousand domains and 50 online marketplaces.[9] Just over a week later, Luxottica obtained from the court an order mandating that domain-name registries transfer the defendants’ domain names to Luxottica.[10] The order further instructed a host of… [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 1:10 am
On the other hand if there were two requests, both of which are directed to claims 1-20, there is arguably cause (waste of office resources) to stay one in favor of the other. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am
He testified that he did not rely on [defendant’s] warnings. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 10:00 pm
§216H.03 now provides that no person shall: 1. [read post]
