Search for: "Defendants A-F"
Results 9661 - 9680
of 29,829
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Jul 2016, 1:24 pm
Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) applied to Nosal’s conduct: “[A] person uses a computer ‘without authorization’ under [the CFAA] . . . when the employer has rescinded permission to access the computer and the defendant uses the computer anyway. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 12:56 pm
He told the sentencing court that a two-level enhancement under § 2G2.2(b)(3)(F) for “distribution other than distribution described in subdivisions (A) through (E)” applied instead. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 11:55 am
IAC/Interactivecorp, 606 F.3d 612 (9th Cir. 2010). [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 7:46 am
Educated in Havana and Moscow he began defending dissidents in 1990 and has served time in prison for his actions. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 4:59 pm
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 35 F. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 11:41 am
”Defendant takes the bait. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 10:03 am
Google Inc., 695 F. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 8:54 am
., 737 F. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 8:54 am
., 737 F. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 8:50 am
The 11th Circuit overturned the convictions, writing: Here, the defendants asked the district court to instruct the jury that “[f]ailure to disclose the financial arrangement between the B-girls and the Bar, in and of itself, is not sufficient to convict a defendant of any offense. . . . [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 8:24 am
Wymer, 40 F. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 8:24 am
Wymer, 40 F. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 7:00 am
Estis Well Service, LLC, 768 F. 3d 382, 389-91 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc). [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 7:00 am
Estis Well Service, LLC, 768 F. 3d 382, 389-91 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc). [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 7:00 am
Estis Well Service, LLC, 768 F. 3d 382, 389-91 (5th Cir. 2014) (en banc). [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 6:44 am
The Court deferred entering a judgment on the jury’s verdict, however, in order to consider the objective prong of the [In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497 F.3d 1370 (Fed. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 5:00 am
Keene Corp., 980 F.2d 411 (7th Cir. 1992), it was held that consideration of “frequency, regularity and proximity of exposure” is necessary to demonstrate that the exposure to a defendant’s asbestos products is a substantial factor in causing the injured party’s disease. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 4:28 am
§ 512(f), which can be found living next door to Barbra Streisand. [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 4:46 pm
** Is the All State Nationwide Class Back for False Advertising Plaintiffs? [read post]
11 Jul 2016, 12:37 pm
(And even the Court of Appeal, I think, knows that, saying: "[I]f the Legislature is troubled by the outcome of this case, it can amend the statute. [read post]
