Search for: "Defendants A-F" Results 9401 - 9420 of 29,832
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Sep 2016, 3:29 pm by The Swartz Law Firm
His procedural challenges were anchored to a double counting argument that he received a two level increase under the sentencing guideline provision U.S.S.G. 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for the distribution of child pornography, in that both the base offense level and the section 2G1.2(b)(3)(F) cover the act of distribution. [read post]
21 Sep 2016, 1:34 pm by emagraken
Loyie) the Plaintiff was injured when his motorcycle was struck by the Defendants vehicle in an intersection collision. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 2:07 pm by R. Locke Beatty
This week we take a look at how a trial court’s evidentiary rulings can foreclose pathways to appealing a ruling on certification down the line, as well as a Hail Mary appeal by a group of Super Bowl ticketholders that ... [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 2:07 pm by R. Locke Beatty
  In the Wash.io Wage and Hour Cases, the parties’ proposed settlement calculated different potential payouts to class members based on the future valuation of the defendant, an app-based laundry service, and the court concluded the odds of any particular valuation being reached needed to be assessed prior to determining whether the agreement was a fair deal for class members. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 10:49 am by Jeremy Saland
Instead, “[i]f a customer exercises dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, and other elements of the crime are present, a larceny has occurred. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 10:49 am by Jeremy Saland
Instead, “[i]f a customer exercises dominion and control wholly inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner, and other elements of the crime are present, a larceny has occurred. [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 7:10 am by Jeff Welty
Di Re, 332 U.S. 581 (1948), for the proposition that probable cause to search a vehicle does not necessarily justify a search of its occupants, ruled that the search of the defendant was faulty because there was no evidence “that the marijuana odor was attributable to defendant”). [read post]