Search for: "In The Matter Of: Jones"
Results 61 - 80
of 6,018
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jul 2024, 6:30 am
This post is based on Jones Day memorandum by Ms. [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 2:00 am
That conclusion does not prevent Dow Jones from continuing to maintain at trial that this litigation is an abuse of process. [read post]
5 Jul 2024, 7:04 am
See, Work Injuries and On-the-Job Accidents in Indiana and Illinois With Federal Law Protections: FELA, Jones Act, LHWCA, DBA. [read post]
4 Jul 2024, 9:05 pm
Whether and to what degree an issue mattered was company-specific, so government needed only to provide the broad framework within which companies could share the factors they considered material to their long-term financial value. [read post]
4 Jul 2024, 1:06 pm
Here are this year's 5 "recent books on the Constitution": Jonathan Turley, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage (2024) Jeffrey Rosen, The Pursuit of Happiness: How Classical Writers on Virtue Inspired the Lives of the Founders and Defined America (2024) Robert Cottrol & Brannon Denning, To Trust the People with Arms: The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment (2023) Nathan Chapman & MIchael McConnell, Agreeing to Disagree: How the… [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 2:38 pm
Hussey, Rebecca Jones McKnight, Rachael G. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 9:43 am
Still, with regard to the separation of powers issues that mattered to McGahn, Kavanaugh had a very strong track record: Brett Kavanaugh, a former White House official sitting on the U.S. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 3:00 am
The conversation then shifts to the recent lawsuits filed by The New York Times, the Center for Investigative Reporting, and Mother Jones against OpenAI and Microsoft for using their copyrighted material to train AI systems. [read post]
2 Jul 2024, 6:33 am
Will specific paralegals be assigned to the matter? [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
This Court has upheld this penalty numerous times over the years in similar situations (see Matter of Quire v City of New York, 189 AD3d 467, 468 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Lumezi v Bratton, 147 AD3d 566 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Jones v Kelly, 111 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2013]). [read post]
28 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
This Court has upheld this penalty numerous times over the years in similar situations (see Matter of Quire v City of New York, 189 AD3d 467, 468 [1st Dept 2020]; Matter of Lumezi v Bratton, 147 AD3d 566 [1st Dept 2017]; Matter of Jones v Kelly, 111 AD3d 415 [1st Dept 2013]). [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 6:26 am
For more on federal jurisdiction over personal injury matters, read: Work Injuries and On-the-Job Accidents in Indiana and Illinois With Federal Law Protections: FELA, Jones Act, LHWCA, DBA. [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 1:56 am
Similarly, the claim did not amount to Jameel abuse as the allegations published in the Home Office Report were very serious and their effect on the claimant’s reputation was held to be a matter for trial. [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 9:19 pm
This case is significant because the case addresses the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment in South Africa and matters concerning provisional sentence. [read post]
22 Jun 2024, 3:26 am
And of course the matter of selection inevitably involves the introduction of bias. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
But three people familiar with the matter said that regulators had accepted a number of measures that Apple had committed to in January this year. . . . [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 7:39 am
My guess is on Justice Gorsuch, who tends to be very skeptical of law enforcement matters, but one cannot be sure of these things. [read post]
19 Jun 2024, 9:18 am
Accordingly, the Court disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that the United States’s interest in the subject matter “tip the scale” in favor of application of the law of the United States. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 7:28 pm
Yes, size matters, and because the legal profession is obsessed with every single measurable and quantifiable factor law firms have to offer, there’s obviously a ranking for that. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 4:16 pm
The High Court held that the claimant had no real prospect of establishing that the reviews caused, or were likely to cause, serious reputational harm, either as a matter of fact or by inference. [read post]
