Search for: "U.S. v. Matte*" Results 7961 - 7980 of 32,165
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2022, 8:32 pm by Florian Mueller
But above all, it's a chance for three dozen U.S. states, Epic Games, Match Group, and the consumer class-action plaintiffs to argue that an adverse inference is warranted (or, as a fallback position, a curative instruction).If not for the Epic Games v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 4:57 am
, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), to enumerate some of the factors that courts should consider in assessing the admissibility of expert scientific testimony under [New Mexico Rule of Evidence 11–702). [read post]
26 May 2018, 7:19 am by Rachel Bercovitz
Sarah Grant flagged a May 23 letter by the U.S. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 1:39 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 765–66 (2011); see Commil USA, LLC v. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 2:48 pm by Jon Sands
Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 12:13 pm
See Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v.Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985); Ford v. [read post]
29 Dec 2006, 6:00 pm
Stolt-Nielsen's motion to dismiss, filed last month, essentially repeats the conclusions of the district court in the pre-indictment litigation: Stolt-Nielsen did not, as a matter of law, breach the amnesty agreement, and the DOJ received the benefit of its bargain with the company, namely incriminating evidence against Stolt-Nielsen and its alleged co-conspirators. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 3:00 am by John Day
Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) (quoting Hunter v. [read post]