Search for: "IN RE THE RULES OF CONTINUING LEGAL"
Results 9141 - 9160
of 15,757
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jun 2015, 1:14 pm
We are being as aggressive as we can legally to, first and foremost, appeal that ruling, and then to implement those elements of immigration executive actions that were not challenged in court. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 10:17 am
And since we’re going to get a ruling pretty quick, I think it’s important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who’ve looked at this would expect them to do. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 5:00 am
“The court will also re-evaluate all aspects of visitation, etc. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
If You Want to Show That You’re Serious, It’s a Good Idea to Know What You’re Talking About On CBS’s “Face the Nation” this past weekend, the host Bob Schieffer asked Mr. [read post]
4 Jun 2015, 6:56 am
Coverage of and commentary on Monday’s opinions continue. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 9:11 am
If you’re not part of our ERISA world, my guess is that you would have probably heard about it or read about in terms other than the above-referenced legal title. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 3:33 pm
In instances of gross negligence (and a few other scenarios) these special rules don’t apply, but that’s a topic for another day. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 3:04 pm
” For legal enthusiasts, the decision is all the more interesting because of the issues raised under the pivotal Erie doctrine, which requires federal courts sitting in diversity to apply state law on substantive issues (such as what defines a legal claim) but confirming they may continue to apply federal law on procedural questions. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 3:04 pm
” For legal enthusiasts, the decision is all the more interesting because of the issues raised under the pivotal Erie doctrine, which requires federal courts sitting in diversity to apply state law on substantive issues (such as what defines a legal claim) but confirming they may continue to apply federal law on procedural questions. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 11:58 am
Our Legal Take As police continue to search for the assailant, The Murray Law Firm is questioning how the attacker was able to break into the apartment and whether a potentially fatal apartment security lapse may also hold responsibility in this harrowing assault. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 3:22 am
First, let there be no question whether either Judge Bates or Director Duff actually is speaking on behalf of the judiciary; they’re not. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 3:00 am
First, let there be no question whether either Judge Bates or Director Duff actually is speaking on behalf of the judiciary; they’re not. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 3:57 am
Abbott, the Texas “one person, one vote” case, continues to garner commentary. [read post]
31 May 2015, 8:12 pm
Repeating what the wrongdoer says in response to an allegation re-victimizes the victim. [read post]
29 May 2015, 2:29 pm
We’re not in that world anymore. [read post]
29 May 2015, 7:25 am
Doesn’t human subjects research always require informed consent, at least ethically, if not legally? [read post]
29 May 2015, 5:32 am
Loser pays the winner’s litigation costs While we’re at it, it’s also high time to reconsider the anomalous American Rule. [read post]
29 May 2015, 4:00 am
The fancy version of this rule is that trademark law does not provide a “right in gross” to a particular term. [read post]
28 May 2015, 3:16 pm
The ex parte rules apply to arbitration—not mediation. [read post]
28 May 2015, 2:29 pm
Courts continue to say and do wildly inconsistent things in the course of gatekeeping. [read post]
