Search for: "Defendant Doe 2"
Results 6621 - 6640
of 40,588
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2013, 8:45 am
Also, in reaching this decision, the appellate court noted that the Act does not place a limit on the length of delays for a competency proceeding. [read post]
12 Feb 2020, 6:28 pm
Offenders face a prison term of 2-5 years and fines of up to $25,000. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 3:06 am
And that's an important lesson for defendants. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 3:02 pm
Defendants contend a nationwide injunction is inappropriate. [read post]
12 Sep 2016, 12:33 pm
Woman 1: Two weeks.Woman 2: You already went to the doctor? [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 8:49 am
Div. 1998) (holding that the entire controversy doctrine does not bar a subsequent action against a defendant if a prior lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice before the defendant filed an answering pleading). [read post]
10 Aug 2019, 4:45 am
When the Sixth Circuit decided Doe v. [read post]
22 May 2012, 10:37 am
Id. at *2-3. [read post]
2 Jan 2011, 2:42 am
This can only be a partial picture as it does not include settlements or withdrawals. [read post]
17 Jan 2009, 2:35 pm
"This conclusion was further supported by a policy statement that provides that a reduction is not authorized under § 3582(c)(2) if the Guideline amendment "does not have the effect of lowering the defendant's applicable guideline range because of the operation of another guideline or statutory provision" such as a statutory mandatory minimum term of imprisonment. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 4:12 pm
That plea also supported the Claimant’s application that the hearing proceed in private, since there is an established principle that the court must adapt its procedures to ensure that it does not provide encouragement or assistance to blackmailers, and does not deter victims of blackmail from seeking justice from the courts (as is made clear in ZAM v CFM and TFW [2013] EWHC 662 (QB) at [39]-[41] and [44] and in LJY v Persons Unknown [2017] EWHC 3230 (QB) at [2]). [read post]
31 Mar 2007, 4:20 am
.* (2) And, while plaintiff had surrendered he sufficiently pled that a dog was sicced on him. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 3:03 am
Plaintiff’s status as a self-represented litigant does not alter this analysis (see Matter of Kent v Kent, 29 AD3d 123, 130-31 [1st Dept 2006]). [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 2:46 am
During most of that time, the parties primarily funded their joint budget via defendant’s W-2 income in auto part sales. [read post]
28 Mar 2014, 9:16 am
2. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 11:58 am
Id.at *1-2. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 1:11 pm
It does not contain pornographic scenes or nudity. [read post]
11 Mar 2009, 6:37 pm
Mot. at 22:1-2.) [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 12:47 pm
At oral argument, Defendants contended that, even if Plaintiff’s employment status does not require that all of his claims be disallowed, Hoffman precludes an award of liquidated damages under the FLSA. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 9:53 am
Fisher, the Supreme Court’s first case decided under that clause (2 Cranch at 396). [read post]
