Search for: "Sees v. Sees"
Results 8001 - 8020
of 122,013
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Oct 2007, 5:11 am
The clip you see here is less than a minute. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 12:33 pm
See the comment by the plaintiff lawyer. [read post]
10 Oct 2007, 5:11 am
The clip you see here is less than a minute. [read post]
20 Sep 2010, 8:09 am
LEXIS 96388, at 14 (citing Forrand v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:02 pm
Pursuant to this exception, defendant "need not prove that age is a [bona fide occupational qualification] for its police officers" (Kopec v City of Elmhurst, 193 F3d 894, 902 [7th Cir 1999]; see Feldman v Nassau County, 434 F3d 177, 182 n 5 [2nd Cir 2006]). [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:02 pm
Pursuant to this exception, defendant "need not prove that age is a [bona fide occupational qualification] for its police officers" (Kopec v City of Elmhurst, 193 F3d 894, 902 [7th Cir 1999]; see Feldman v Nassau County, 434 F3d 177, 182 n 5 [2nd Cir 2006]). [read post]
18 Apr 2012, 8:48 am
For my next post on the law review submission process (see intro, part I, part II on timing of submissions,part III interview and part IV interview if you are interested), I interviewed three editors from the Vanderbilt Law Review. [read post]
16 May 2010, 3:36 pm
(See Bowers v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 2:24 pm
It is well established that the admissibility of expert testimony is addressed primarily to the sound discretion of the trial court (see People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433), and here we conclude that the court properly determined that the expert did not possess a professional or technical knowledge that was beyond the ken of the average juror (see People v Hicks, 2 NY3d 75).By not requiring the admission of such testimony or the giving of an adverse inference… [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 2:24 pm
It is well established that the admissibility of expert testimony is addressed primarily to the sound discretion of the trial court (see People v Cronin, 60 NY2d 430, 433), and here we conclude that the court properly determined that the expert did not possess a professional or technical knowledge that was beyond the ken of the average juror (see People v Hicks, 2 NY3d 75).By not requiring the admission of such testimony or the giving of an adverse inference… [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 5:04 pm
See, e.g., Gomez v. [read post]
11 Jun 2012, 7:00 am
Teleflex Patent from KSR v Teleflex In KSR v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 12:23 pm
See Schuetz v. [read post]
13 Aug 2018, 6:20 am
See here. [read post]
9 Nov 2012, 11:18 am
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
15 Oct 2022, 8:27 am
Aug. 26, 2022); see also Stellar Restoration Servs. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2023, 7:48 am
See the slides here: Patent Year in Review. [read post]
12 Apr 2021, 12:25 pm
Maurer, 293 U.S. 237, 244 (1934)); see also FW/PBS, Inc. v. [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 2:57 am
Supreme Court Decides Jones v. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 5:05 am
Didn’t see this coming. [read post]
