Search for: "DOE DEFENDANT"
Results 9561 - 9580
of 112,778
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Aug 2020, 4:00 am
The court said in part:The record does not present sufficient evidence to establish that the Individual Defendants knew or should have known their straightforward application of the seemingly legal zoning regulations, which impose different setback requirements on places of worship and places of business, would violate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 8:34 am
Structural error does not require prejudice. [read post]
17 May 2019, 5:00 am
In this case, the court ruled in favor of the Defendants, finding that these particular Defendants were indeed afforded immunity in negligence causes of action. [read post]
13 Mar 2014, 10:03 am
The federal system does have fairly severe potential penalties for all varieties of drug cases, but again, whether a defendant actually gets a severe penalty depends on many factors. [read post]
28 Dec 2012, 9:51 am
Case files show that the appeals court found that "although the evidence showed the defendant had actual knowledge of the suspension, evidence of the defendant's actual knowledge alone does not satisfy the element of notice required by MCL 257.904(1)." [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 8:11 pm
Unfortunately, Virginia law does not guarantee a bond hearing in Virginia General District Court, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court, nor Circuit Court as soon as that, and Virginia judges use their discretion whether to consider pretrial release at the first appearance / arraignment of a detained criminal defendant. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 4:00 am
Plaintiff's work environment, however, does not evoke in the court's mind the burdens endured by the African slaves in the cotton fields or kitchens of the antebellum south. [read post]
16 Oct 2013, 5:48 am
However, what knowledge Plaintiff does allege must still be plausible." [read post]
12 Sep 2013, 2:21 pm
A defendant does not has to testify but can make a allocution . [read post]
7 Mar 2016, 12:00 pm
Defendant's still going away for decades on the other counts.But still. [read post]
5 Oct 2021, 12:58 pm
Allianz ultimately declined to defend under its policies, and the court found it had a duty to defend. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 7:11 am
Given that Alice now expressly requires that courts look at patented elements in combination when assessing inventive concept (as did Mayo), the concern of hindsight bias has as much relevance to a § 101 challenge as it does a § 103 challenge. [read post]
27 Sep 2013, 8:10 am
Additionally, an appeal does not constitute a new trial. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 4:10 am
This claim, however, is inadequately pled against the AHA ... because Plaintiff does not allege that the official marriage-certificate policy itself was motivated by animus, but rather, that the Individual Defendants’ enforcement of the policy against her was motivated by animus....There may be an argument that Defendant’s marriage-certificate policy might not be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest if it fails to recognize a marriage that… [read post]
13 Apr 2016, 10:21 am
That [defendant] can simplify the invention enough to find a human counterpart (or argue that a human could somehow perform the steps of the method) does not suffice to make the concept abstract, as '[a]t some level, "all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas. [read post]
5 Dec 2018, 9:08 pm
Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s Order awarding the Defendant a new trial on damages. [read post]
20 Feb 2023, 4:10 am
§ 2.61(c)....The plaintiff does not argue that the defendant’s vaccine mandate was not generally applicable. [read post]
28 Jun 2020, 10:38 am
In Doe v. [read post]
24 May 2018, 5:00 am
The Defendants were Pennsylvania residents. [read post]
15 Mar 2013, 9:37 am
”In an opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held by a vote of 7-2 that the FDCPA does not conflict with Rule 54(d), and a district court therefore retains discretion to award costs to a prevailing defendant without having to find that the plaintiff brought the case in bad faith and for the purpose of harassment. [read post]
