Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 7761 - 7780 of 29,487
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Oct 2017, 5:31 pm by INFORRM
Data Privacy and Data Protection On 24 October 2017, the Advocate General’s Opinion in the case of Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein v. [read post]
29 Oct 2017, 4:33 am by Keith L. Miller
Corbett defended the accusations and the ultimate sanction of disbarment, both factually and on the board’s interpretation of the law. [read post]
29 Oct 2017, 4:33 am by Keith L. Miller
Corbett defended the accusations and the ultimate sanction of disbarment, both factually and on the board’s interpretation of the law. [read post]
27 Oct 2017, 10:00 am by Chris Mirasola
Stepney,  Ryan raised two hypotheticals: (1) that defense attorneys may have entered into an agreement that entailed a duty of loyalty to other defendants, which in turn might require all attorneys to withdraw, and (2) that this duty of loyalty might even require withdrawal when one defendant advances an argument in conflict with that of other defendants. [read post]
27 Oct 2017, 9:06 am by Benson Varghese
Under the Castle Doctrine, in certain circumstances, you are presumed to have acted reasonably in defending your “castle. [read post]
26 Oct 2017, 6:00 am by Coby Turner and Parnian Vafaeenia
Among the alleged hyper-technical violations causing employers to spend heavily to defend themselves—and sometimes causing them to incur huge penalties—have been these: Neglecting to total all the hours worked, even though the wage statement lists all the various types of hours individually. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 6:29 pm by Schachtman
See Orders regarding Defendants Combined Motion for New Trial and Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict, Echeverria v. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 12:08 pm by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.
§ 13-3408(F), the minimum he could be fined for narcotic drug possession was the greater of $2,000 or three times the value of the narcotics involved. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 11:09 am by Steve Vladeck
§ 3599(f) that federal courts in capital cases involving indigent defendants (including suits for post-conviction relief) should fund “investigative, expert, or other services [that] are reasonably necessary for the representation of the defendant, whether in connection with issues relating to guilt or the sentence. [read post]