Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 8081 - 8100 of 29,832
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2011, 8:34 am by Russell Jackson
., 621 F.3d 111, 120 (2d Cir. 2010) that corporations cannot be sued for alleged violations of customary international law under the Alien Tort Statute. [read post]
9 Aug 2007, 8:30 am
Va. concluded that the plaintiff's amended complaint adding a new defendant would relate back for purposes of the statute of limitations to the date of the original filing as to the new defendant, where the original complaint included as defendants the Buchanan County sheriff's office, and the new complaint named the Sheriff himself, citing the Fourth Circuit's recent opinion in Goodman v. [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 7:18 am by Joel R. Brandes
There the Sixth Circuit granted defendant's emergency motion to stay the order pending appeal. [read post]
19 Jul 2013, 10:43 am by Eric Alexander
Dow Chemical Co., 826 F.2d 420, 423 (5th Cir. 1987), in rejecting where an expert acknowledges the plaintiff’s injury “could have had numerous causes and . . . simply picks the cause that is most advantageous to [a plaintiff’s] claim. [read post]
28 Feb 2007, 4:49 pm
Inflammatory Public StatementsThis allegation primarily involves Nifong's pre-primary publicity barrage, but also addresses some comments he made after securing indictments, such as his rambling e-mail to Susannah Meadows of Newsweek.Nifong offers five lines of defense:(a) All of his public statements were based on information he was fed by police or medical personnel;(b) Rule 3.8(f) applies only after indictments have been secured, and can be trumped by other concerns;(c) Rule 3.6,… [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 9:04 pm by Evan Brown (@internetcases)
The court found that plaintiff would likely succeed on its Section 512(f) claim because of the strong inference that defendant knew it did not have a valid copyright claim. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 12:05 pm by Nolan and Auerbach
Emergency Medical Associates, 436 F.3d 726 (7th Cir. 2006), that the public disclosure bar applied when public allegations raised industry-wide fraud allegations, even when the allegations did not mention the specific defendant identified in a later filed qui tam action. [read post]