Search for: "Doe Defendants I through V"
Results 8721 - 8740
of 12,273
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Feb 2012, 6:33 am
By Daniel RichardsonPierce v. [read post]
3 Feb 2012, 12:12 am
(Eugene Volokh) An interesting opinion in United States v. [read post]
Review of the Effects of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act on Third Party Participation Applicants
1 Feb 2012, 9:15 am
Further, the defendant must prove prior commercial use by clear and convincing evidence.[9] Lastly, any abandonment of use or use through derivation from the inventor negates the prior user rights.[10] What qualifies as commercial use is not intuitive and is broader than any prior user rights under the prior 35 U.S.C. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 8:41 am
Coogan and Philips v News Group Newspapers [2012] EWCA Civ 48 -read judgment The Court of Appeal today dismissed Mr Glenn Mulcaire’s appeal against an order that he provide information to claimants in the phone hacking litigation. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 8:29 am
by Kevin Jon Heller It’s rare that I defend the ICTY, but I feel compelled to do so here. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 6:18 am
As a result, “if a defendant has intercepted a claimant’s voice messages … even where there is a significant preponderance of plainly non-confidential messages, he should nonetheless disclose them as part of the overall disclosure exercise” [56] Lord Neuberger therefore concluded that the disclosure orders of Mann and Vos JJ should be upheld. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 4:57 am
See Lesiak v. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 2:57 pm
Here, the claim that the defendants' attorneys are hoping to make is that tax protestors can have a genuinely held belief that failure to file returns/pay taxes does not violate any known legal duty. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 12:52 pm
See footnotes 50 through 53. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 10:05 pm
Invariably, the defendants refuse to disclose the very same information that Zimmerman's attorneys refused to disclose in Zimmerman v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 9:29 am
"Our side" considered it a loss (I was lobbying for the Innocence Project of Texas on the subject), but the law simply did not give criminal defendants the means to keep eyewitness testimony out of evidence if lineups don't follow written policies, nor if written policies are inadequate.Ironically, though Chief Rodriguez wants to blame the Legislature for his woes, the much more significant penalty for failing to follow best practices was laid down in October by the… [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 7:53 am
See California v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 6:00 am
Crown Packaging v. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 4:00 pm
This case, Jones v. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 12:49 pm
See, People v. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 2:21 pm
Under section 5(e) of the CPA: (e) there is a representative plaintiff or defendant who, (i) would fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class, (ii) has produced a plan for the proceeding that sets out a workable method of advancing the proceeding on behalf of the class and of notifying class members of the proceeding, and (iii) does not have, on the common issues for the class, an interest in conflict with the interests of other class members. 1992,… [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 11:59 am
Nevertheless, the Defendant does not have a generalized right to rummage at will through information that Plaintiff has limited from public view. [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 8:45 am
The AEP ruling leaves open the question of (i) whether states can sue under state law, and (ii) whether climate change victims can seek damages through the courts. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 3:19 pm
On AT&T v. [read post]
26 Jan 2012, 1:07 pm
Feb. 19, 2010) (“[defendant] received premarket approval”; “that the [device] allegedly failed during normal use does not override the clear language of §360(a) or . . . [read post]
