Search for: "JUSTE v. CIRCUIT COURT et al" Results 61 - 80 of 1,482
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Apr 2023, 1:34 am by Florian Mueller
Yesterday (Friday, March 31) the DOJ filed its reply brief in support of its motion for sanctions: United States of America, et al., v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 2:29 am by Florian Mueller
Meanwhile, Google has filed its opposition brief, which just like in the Northern District of California is the epitome of denial:United States of America, et al., v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 11:37 am by David Kopel
The second is from a recent federal district court opinion in Bevis v. [read post]
25 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm by admin
Although I am not a Jew, I am, following Jonathan Miller, “Jew-ish, just not the whole hog. [read post]
24 Feb 2023, 7:56 pm by Josh Blackman
See, e.g., Brief for State of Mississippi et al. as Amici Curiae 7–10; Ante, at 1–2 (GORSUCH, J., dissenting). [read post]
22 Feb 2023, 1:07 pm by Dennis Crouch
And it may help judges prevent (or call into question) misrepresentations about David v. [read post]
17 Feb 2023, 6:11 am by Justin Cole
” Other briefs that make this argument: Seattle School District No. 1; Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), Congressman Mike Johnson (R-LA), et al. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
”[12]As one Fifth Circuit court noted “if the [investors] did not possess the information requisite for a registration statement, they could not bring their sophisticated knowledge of business affairs to bear in deciding whether or not to invest. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 6:36 pm by admin
Although cited for an irrelevant proposition, the Supreme Court’s selection of the Best’s case was puzzling because the Sixth Circuit’s discussion of the issue is particularly muddled. [read post]
31 Jan 2023, 1:01 pm by Florian Mueller
Microsoft asks the court to adjudge its motion to dismiss regardless of any commitments not to close the deal before a given date.Here's Microsoft's motion, filed late Tuesday afternoon Pacific Time:De Martini et al. v. [read post]