Search for: "Defendant Doe 2"
Results 921 - 940
of 40,580
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2015, 2:54 pm
Brown, 285 Ga. 442, 444-45 (2) (2009) (emphasis added and citation omitted) . [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 2:54 pm
Brown, 285 Ga. 442, 444-45 (2) (2009) (emphasis added and citation omitted) . [read post]
5 Jul 2007, 4:09 am
July 2, 2007) [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
The waiver at issue does not include an express provision barring the filing of § 3582(c)(2) motions, as some plea agreements do. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 11:14 am
Smith, No. 10-10036 (2-3-11) (Gould with Callahan and Korman, Sr. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 9:26 am
§766.1065(2)(a)). [read post]
3 May 2009, 12:37 pm
HBZT, a California corporation, Dan Black, an individual and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants. [read post]
10 Dec 2013, 3:54 pm
It does not. [read post]
5 Dec 2005, 5:00 am
"The Board was not impressed, pointing out that 2 respondents out of 42 inquiries "mathematically does not amount to the inflated percentage calculated by plaintiff (25%). [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 2:30 am
If section 160A does so require, the Court will consider whether a failure to give that other such an opportunity renders the confiscation order invalid. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 4:19 am
The Juvenile Justice Code does not contain the equivalent of N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2(b)(2), permitting a criminal court to sentence a defendant to a jail term not to exceed 364 days as a condition of probation.... [read post]
29 Oct 2013, 7:10 am
[T]he fact that [defendant] might, in some situations, give the Apps away for free does not mean that [it] cannot, in other situations, be selling the Apps within the meaning of § 271(c). [read post]
26 May 2017, 7:35 am
And because [the expert's] report does not identify any new factual basis for [defendant's] § 101 theory, no discovery violation has occurred. . . . [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 6:28 am
The Court does not find that the appeal was independently exceptional. [read post]
2 Nov 2017, 7:18 am
The fact that counsel remedied [defendant's] bad behavior does not alter the reality that false statements in the Answer are not proper litigation behavior. . . . [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 7:29 am
Nov. 15, 2017)] does not invite defendants who have substantially engaged in a case to reassert an abandoned defense once it becomes convenient or advantageous for them. . . . [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 8:47 am
The defendant contends that the award of damages was impermissibly speculative because the record does not disclose any evidence indicating that the defendant’s conduct caused the damages complained of. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 5:12 pm
" I said: Does Stephens's analogy function properly? [read post]
16 Nov 2016, 10:14 am
Evidence of ordinary negligence does not create a material question of fact concerning gross negligence. [read post]
29 Mar 2010, 5:30 pm
§ 3582(c)(2) and this policy statement do not constitute a full resentencing of the defendant. [read post]
