Search for: "Doe v. Doe"
Results 7401 - 7420
of 152,616
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Dec 2010, 10:58 am
“[T]he ergonomist could testify as an expert about how dangerous the railroad yard’s conditions were, but that does not mean he is qualified to testify [...] [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 9:53 pm
It's quite another to do what Judge Molloy (up in Montana) does here. [read post]
7 Nov 2017, 11:27 am
One of the words in the following list does not appear in today's dissent by Judge Kozinski to a Judge Reinhardt immigration opinion. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 11:00 am
Civil Procedure Subject matter jurisdiction; CFAA Merely accessing and disseminating information from a protected computer does not suffice to create a cause of action under the Computer Fraud Abuse Act. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 4:40 pm
Sometimes the California Court of Appeal really does get things. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 7:25 am
Administrative law — Employment termination — Substantial evidence Samuel Moki, PhD, appellant, challenges a decision of the Prince George’s County Personnel Board (“the Board”) upholding his dismissal from his position as Associate Director of the Environmental Services Group of the Prince George’s County Department of the Environment (“DOE”),1 appellee. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 11:13 am
It does. [read post]
13 Nov 2012, 11:07 am
" You don't need a particular property right (here, an easement), but someone else does. [read post]
7 May 2014, 10:12 am
Regardless, the Ninth Circuit holds that it does not violate the Constitution for elections officials to leave you off the ballot if you concede you do not satisfy the age qualifications set forth in that same document.The Peace and Freedom party tilts at a windmill. [read post]
13 Jan 2011, 11:24 am
“Leitgen responds that her complaints were ongoing up until September 2006, and therefore a large time gap does not separate [...] [read post]
23 May 2013, 12:31 pm
Lofland, who indicates that he plans later this week to make a filing advising the Supreme Court that Respondent does not oppose the granting of certiorari. [read post]
8 Feb 2011, 11:12 am
Torts Dog injury statute Public policy does not bar a strict liability claim against a homeowner under Wisconsin’s dog injury statute, sec. 174.02, where dog belonged to the homeowner’s daughter who lived with her. [read post]
4 Dec 2007, 10:31 am
Here's a good way to write an opinion that (1) does some good, and advises district courts (and prosecutors) to follow the law, but (2) refrains from reversing a conviction. [read post]
26 Mar 2014, 2:39 pm
Unknowingly having a temporary cache file in your computer may not count as 'possession' of child pornography in the federal system, but here in California, under state law, we say it does." [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 11:23 am
Constitutional Law Sovereign immunity A state does not lose its sovereign immunity through litigation conduct. [read post]
6 Jan 2011, 10:42 am
Employment ERISA Participants in a retirement plan cannot sue the buyer of an ERISA plan’s assets, when the plan’s sponsor sells all the assets out of which plan benefits might be paid and distributes the proceeds of the sale, thereby becoming a shell, but the buyer does not assume any of the seller’s liabilities under the plan. [read post]
10 Jan 2011, 10:36 am
“RESPA does not require any magic language before a servicer must construe a written communication from a borrower as a qualified written request and respond accordingly. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 10:49 am
“The district court concluded, and we agree, that Silverman’s disagreement with Karvelas’s evaluation does not present a genuine issue of material fact about the reasons for [...] [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 11:56 am
United States Supreme Court CIVIL OPINIONS Indians Attorney-client privilege The fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian tribes. [read post]
17 Jul 2008, 2:02 pm
The European Court of Justice has given a judgment today to the effect that the "Employment Directive", 2000/78, which outlaws discrimination at work on grounds including disability, does not simply outlaw discrimination against disabled workers but extends to protecting the non-disabled mother of a disabled child. [read post]
