Search for: "Defendant Doe 1" Results 701 - 720 of 46,252
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jun 2024, 4:49 pm by INFORRM
The Defendants had raised various defences, one of which is that the Article was a fair and accurate report of certain legal proceedings known as “the Excalibur Litigation” so as to attract qualified privilege under section 15 and paragraphs 2 and 5 of Schedule 1 of the Defamation Act 1996 (“the 1996 Act”) [20]. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 11:40 am by Kate Reeves
The working group agreed that the widespread use of RTI “does not at all remove the need for legally mandated whistleblower protection [for RTI users]. [read post]
4 Jun 2024, 9:30 am by Daniele Durkin
  The creators of this genAI technology were also included as John Doe defendants in the suit. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 12:08 pm by Eugene Volokh
As relevant here, the schools defended on the ground that the First Amendment protected their right to "associat[e]" with those of their choosing. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 9:38 am by Ian Ayres
  This does not mean that all or even most first-encounter, unprotected sex is non-consensual. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 6:07 am by Ahmed Sirleaf
After 11 years of operation and tens of millions of dollars spent, the SCSL tried 23 individuals, completing proceedings against all but one of the defendants. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 5:42 am by Wystan Ackerman
First, the court held that a named plaintiff does not have standing to seek injunctive relief where the possibility of imminently sustaining a similar future injury is speculative. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 4:31 am by Franklin C. McRoberts
Kefalas alleged that he contributed $1 million in exchange for “40% of the profits. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 4:30 am by Eric B. Meyer
The FTC argues that “mere litigation expense, even substantial and unrecoupable cost, does not constitute irreparable injury. [read post]
3 Jun 2024, 4:00 am by Howard Friedman
The court responded:Defendants do not dispute that MCL 750.81d(1) is facially neutral because it does not refer to religion in any manner. [read post]
31 May 2024, 3:17 pm by John Floyd
Under this rule, the erroneous admission of evidence that does not result in a constitutional error will be disregarded (as though it did not happen) if the error did not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. [read post]