Search for: "NO PARTY v. NO PARTY" Results 641 - 660 of 120,092
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Mar 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
A party to a stipulation of settlement cannot withdraw from the stipulation on the basis that it had "improvidently"agreed to itState of New York v Public Employment. [read post]
27 Sep 2017, 7:42 am by Amy Howe
But that’s exactly what happened in District of Columbia v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 11:42 am by Antonin I. Pribetic
[“Export Packers”] confirms that a defendant’s third party claim does not amount to a “real and substantial connection” unless one of the (4) presumptive connecting factors set out in Club Resorts Ltd. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Adding parties to the litigation pursuant to the “relation-back" doctrineCrawford v City of New York, 2015 NY Slip Op 05267, Appellate Division, First DepartmentBarry E. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 6:23 am by Gritsforbreakfast
To me, eventually the entire third-party doctrine spawned from the court's Smith and Miller cases in the '70s (see here for an example of an Obama apologist using those cases to justify the NSA gobbling up everyone's cell-phone metadata ) must be reconsidered in light of the advent of cloud computing in the digital age, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor rightly argued in US v. [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 5:44 am
During the jury trial, many third parties are likely to have data revealed about their own practices as the court has been reluctant to prohibit the public from viewing many, if not all, aspects of the trial. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 10:32 am by Glenn Reynolds
TEA PARTY UPDATE: Justin Binik-Thomas of the Cincinnati Tea Party sends this picture and reports: “The Cincinnati Tea Party and The Ohio Project are at the Potter Stewart Courthouse today. [read post]