Search for: "IN RE MOTION FOR RETURN OF PROPERTY" Results 801 - 820 of 976
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2010, 4:48 am by Russell Jackson
  The district court -- applying Twombly and Iqbal -- granted the motion without prejudice. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 11:40 am by Marin Feldman
She is fanatical about her desk property, typically mounting signs that say, "This Purell Is Not Free! [read post]
6 Jun 2010, 7:51 pm
The Court reasoned that the trial court should re-examine the issue of fees and costs after a trial on the remand issues. [read post]
21 May 2010, 6:32 am by Russell Jackson
The trial court had ruled on the plaintiff's motion for class certification some six months before the California Supremes' decision in In re Tobacco II Cases, 46 Cal. 4th 298 (2009). [read post]
14 May 2010, 7:36 am by Carolyn Elefant
Property:  While figuring out the division of clients, departing lawyers must also determine what property they can rightfully take, and what belongs to the firm. [read post]
14 May 2010, 7:26 am by Carolyn Elefant
Property:  While figuring out the division of clients, departing lawyers must also determine what property they can rightfully take, and what belongs to the firm. [read post]
14 May 2010, 7:26 am by Carolyn Elefant
Property:  While figuring out the division of clients, departing lawyers must also determine what property they can rightfully take, and what belongs to the firm. [read post]
13 May 2010, 1:15 pm by Fred Goldsmith
There was a pond on the mine property near East Cadaro Junction. [read post]
10 May 2010, 1:16 pm by admin
– Construction & Demolition Recycling, May 4, 2010 The Massachusetts Attorney General has announced that the owner of Northeast Demolition and Removal, as well as a company site foreman, have pled guilty to charges they violated the state’s Clean Air Act by failing to improperly remove asbestos from properties in Attleboro and North Attleborough, Mass. [read post]
10 May 2010, 5:41 am by Russell Jackson
  The fraud prong of their UCL claim was barred for lack of standing, the court concluded, citing In re Tobacco II Cases. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:34 am by Joseph C. McDaniel
The bank files a Motion to Lift the Stay, and generally that motion is granted, because in a Chapter 7, the defenses just don't apply (there's no equity for the estate in the house, and the house isn't need for an effective reorganization, because there is no reorganization in a Chapter 7). [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 7:53 am by Joseph C. McDaniel
That's fine, because there are assets to be liquidated, and somebody's got to do that, and they're elected under the law. [read post]