Search for: "MATTER OF RULES OF EVIDENCE"
Results 7021 - 7040
of 42,241
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Feb 2016, 8:48 am
The Brown ruling shows that the Title IX Catch-22 is not inevitable. [read post]
26 Feb 2016, 8:48 am
The Brown ruling shows that the Title IX Catch-22 is not inevitable. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 3:54 pm
The court must award those costs and fees unless the court determines the denying party had reasonable ground to believe they would prevail on the matter. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 5:22 am
For Lord Mance, what mattered was the context of the letter. [read post]
28 Oct 2013, 6:47 am
Because Rule 1.6 balances the interests at stake, it need not give way to FCA, Sec. 3730(b)(2)’s requirement of disclosure of material evidence. [read post]
9 May 2018, 2:58 pm
Substantial evidence supportsits obviousness determination.Exxon v. [read post]
14 Jul 2021, 8:09 pm
We conclude that, as a matter of law, plaintiffs are limited to head-start damages and did not provide evidence that would support the damages award of over $11 million. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 8:00 am
Rarely did witnesses or other corroborating (or refuting) evidence exist. [read post]
2 Feb 2018, 3:39 pm
Motives are important evidence about future behavior and are therefore relevant. [read post]
26 May 2017, 6:58 am
In what the courts refer to as “direct evidence” cases, it does not matter whether the police had actual knowledge or reason to believe the defendant was innocent. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:07 pm
As such, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that claimant did not and could not comply with the reporting requirements from Egypt (see Labor Law § 596; 12 NYCRR 473.1, 473.2, 473.3; Matter of Inatomi [Commissioner of Labor], 116 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2014]). [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:07 pm
As such, substantial evidence supports the Board's conclusion that claimant did not and could not comply with the reporting requirements from Egypt (see Labor Law § 596; 12 NYCRR 473.1, 473.2, 473.3; Matter of Inatomi [Commissioner of Labor], 116 AD3d 1332, 1333 [2014]). [read post]
9 Feb 2014, 3:07 pm
Thanks, Cerryg, it's good to have your inside track on this ruling. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 4:30 am
It does not matter that there was also substantial contrary evidence. [read post]
2 May 2022, 2:43 pm
The district court did not provide reasons for apparently discounting Pro-Mold’s evidence of secondary considerations; that was error as a matter of law. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 3:16 pm
To warrant a derivative finding in this matter, ACS must demonstrate that Respondent's 2001 conviction is “a reliable indicator” that the subject children's “physical, mental or emotional condition is in imminent danger of becoming impaired”. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 10:46 am
After a presentation of the evidence, a jury ruled in Bosetti’s favor. [read post]
18 Dec 2017, 3:45 am
Trafigura Beheer Ltd v Renbrandt Ltd On 1 December the Commercial Court gave a judgment for the Claimant seller in this matter, which arose out of the sale of a cargo of gas oil in 2008. [read post]
21 May 2010, 8:58 am
And fortunately for us patent prosecutors, In re Vaidyanathan is one of those cases where Newman waxed very eloquent in saying: “Obviousness is determined as a matter of foresight, not hindsight. [read post]
27 May 2019, 5:03 pm
The Board thereupon announced by way of a ruling posted obscurely on its website without notification to those who responded that comments about the mandatory tariff and retroactivity issues, along with other key substantive issues, would be ignored. [read post]
