Search for: "Does 1 - 23" Results 6981 - 7000 of 15,479
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jun 2023, 11:54 am by Ted Max
”[1] The Case In the District Court , Ninth Circuit and Oral Argument in the Supreme Court Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. [read post]
16 Jun 2023, 12:04 pm by Ted Max
”[1] The Case In the District Court , Ninth Circuit and Oral Argument in the Supreme Court Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 8:19 pm by Paul Karlsgodt
” The allocation of fees and costs between a class and individual plaintiffs raises a host of difficult questions, including 1) can a court force an opt-out to pay a portion of the fees of class counsel? [read post]
1 May 2019, 3:05 am by Liz Dunshee
The adopting release does not mention Form S-8, but the amendments to Rule 411 could impact Form S-8 through general application of Regulation C (per Instruction B.1). [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 10:44 am by Travis Hinman
  The majority opinion does offer some safe harbor for class action defendants. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 5:31 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
An individualized determination of damages doesn’t preclude a predominance finding under Rule 23(b)(3); Wal-Mart involved Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 12:04 pm
On September 23, 2013, Brashear filed a motion . . . to continue trial and jury selection. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 2:07 pm by Larry
" This is merely a statement of the legal conclusion and does not provide any factual basis on which the determination was made. [read post]
22 Dec 2023, 1:35 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Although “every circuit to squarely consider the issue” has found that Rule 23 does not preclude cy pres awards. [read post]
2 Sep 2007, 11:00 pm
The Indians outpassed the Longhorns (272 to 223), outrushed them (125 to 117), tallied more first downs (26 to 23), punted fewer times (3 to 4), threw fewer interceptions (1 to 2), had a stronger kickoff return game (94 return yards to 73), and held the ball longer in time of possession (30:12 to 29:49). [read post]
3 May 2007, 3:06 pm
" First, new section 249(a)(1) of title 18 would eliminate the current requirement that the victim be engaged in federally protected activity. [read post]