Search for: "Defendant Doe 2" Results 7341 - 7360 of 40,589
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jun 2021, 10:30 am by Eugene Volokh
Because Plaintiff and Defendants are each citizens of the District of Columbia, complete diversity does not exist among the parties. [read post]
11 Apr 2015, 6:05 am by Andrew Delaney
This is a three-justice review (under V.R.A.P. 9(b)(2) for you citation junkies). [read post]
20 Aug 2021, 10:21 am by Rebecca Tushnet
Mar. 25, 2021) Plaintiff, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing the interests of citizens who support animal protection, alleged that defendants violated sections 349 and 350 of the NYGBL by deceptively marketing their foie gras products as originating from humanely treated ducks, which injured it by “(1) setting back its organizational mission to reduce demand for foie gras and obtain the passage of laws banning its sale, and (2) requiring it to spend money and resources to… [read post]
22 Feb 2010, 7:07 am by Erin Miller
Richter Docket: 09-587 Issue: Does a defense lawyer violate the Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel when he does not investigate or present available forensic evidence supporting the theory of defense he uses during trial and instead relies on cross-examination and other methods designed to create reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt? [read post]
2 Apr 2007, 5:03 am
The court held that while CAFA does not define “significant relief,” the term must mean something other than “primary defendant” (a phrase used, but undefined, elsewhere in CAFA), and that the relief sought against it was clearly significant. [read post]
19 Jan 2012, 6:24 am by 1 Crown Office Row
The first is: where does this case leave their Lordships’ controversial ruling in A (No 2)? [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 10:00 pm
But REMS does give defendants a chance to assert a preemption defense.The FDAAA of 2007 adds a new section, 21 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Apr 2010, 8:00 am by Todd Penner
Mar. 5, 2010), the court granted defendant Hofer’s motion to dismiss. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 7:00 am by Andrew Hamm
United States 19-1037Issue: Whether a defendant is “unable to stand trial” within the meaning of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers when he or she has a motion pending before the trial court. [read post]
7 Sep 2013, 2:36 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Upon the court’s review of these statements, it does not find that they refute the complainant's allegations. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 11:00 pm by Giesela Ruehl
That these are determinative factors for the purposes of Articles 4(1) and 4(2) does not exclude them from consideration under 4(3). [read post]