Search for: "Doe Defendants 1 to 20"
Results 8081 - 8100
of 8,963
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 May 2009, 12:33 pm
The plaintiff estimated that he was approximately 15 to 20 feet in front of the defendant when the errant ball was hit. [read post]
4 May 2009, 4:47 am
April 20, 2009) [Slip Opn., at 1-2]. [read post]
2 May 2009, 10:12 am
May 1, 2009)(per curiam)(statutory construction; does hand-written copy qualify as a copy required by the prison inmate litigation statute?) [read post]
1 May 2009, 11:11 pm
Outerbridge(phonetic), unreported, which apparently follows this logic in rejection of a purported acceptance of an offer to settle communicated 18 days into a 20-day trial. [read post]
1 May 2009, 6:37 am
It never ends, does it? [read post]
1 May 2009, 5:28 am
LEXIS 224 (April 20, 2009).* Claimant's claim he was detained and did not consent in an airport is rejected. [read post]
1 May 2009, 3:48 am
St. of Louisiana DOE, No. 08-30984 (5th Cir. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 6:35 am
April 23, 2009): The mere fact that a law enforcement officer initiates a second encounter with a defendant after the initial encounter had been terminated, does not in itself render the second encounter a seizure. [read post]
29 Apr 2009, 1:59 pm
The whole thing goes into effect on September 1. [read post]
28 Apr 2009, 12:09 am
The maximum penalty for individuals is $1 million and $10 million for any other person Section 20(3) identifies the factors to be considered in assessing the penalty, including past violations and financial benefits from the activity. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 1:23 pm
In response, Claimants stated among other things, that because the class action does not involve the same claims or the same defendants, and because Claimants have already opted-out of the claims against Respondent in any class action, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss should be denied. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 7:46 am
April 20, 2009) (unpublished) [read post]
26 Apr 2009, 6:16 pm
Although the motion judge refused to strike the claim, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and stated that the proper defendant in the case was the manufacturer. [read post]
25 Apr 2009, 7:05 am
April 20, 2009). [read post]
24 Apr 2009, 3:06 pm
April 20, 2009) [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 10:43 am
Jack had to give it up under cross to make the movie work and boy does his performance make it work! [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 6:25 am
I would guesstimate (and NORML confirms) that at least 1/2 of the possession cases involve defendants under 25. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 5:58 am
With regard to argument 1, here are my thoughts. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:41 pm
., No. 3658-VCS (April 20, 2009), read opinion here. [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 2:52 am
That is, iiNet appears to be defending the allegation of authorising copyright infringement in part by contending it did not have sufficient knowledge of what was going on to have the necessary control. [read post]
