Search for: "Wells v. James" Results 81 - 100 of 5,204
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2009, 5:10 am
But again, he didn't try to, so he failed to preserve error, so all's well that ends well. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 8:16 pm
Judge James Lawrence King has issued another order of interest in re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation, No. 09-MD-02036-JLK (covered previously this blog) that addressed AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 2:24 pm by Ashby Jones
About seven miles separate the amusement park from the U.S. courthouse in Santa Ana, where federal judge James V. [read post]
25 Jan 2021, 9:36 am by Arnold Wadsworth Coggins
For reasons explained further below, we repudiate the sweeping language of our opinion in James and hold that the identity of the door-opener may well affect the reasonableness of a given police encounter. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 9:51 am by Walter Olson
James Beck explains and Orac has some strong views as well (”I’m afraid Justice Sotomayor borders on the delusional when she blithely proclaims that courts are so good at efficiently disposing of meritless product liability claims. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 8:28 am by The Federalist Society
The defendants included high-level officials in the Department of Justice (DOJ) such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI director Robert Mueller, and Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar, as well as various detention officials. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 10:31 am by Matt C. Bailey
On July 11, 2012, Northern District Court Judge, James Ware, granted a plaintiff-side summary judgment in Quezada v. [read post]
24 Feb 2008, 9:30 am
As an aside, today is also the 205th anniversary of Marberry v. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 2:00 pm by Eileen McDermott
James Edwards, a consultant to Centripetal and to amici Eagle Forum ELDF and Committee for Justice, as well as head of amicus, Conservatives for Property Rights, wrote on IPWatchdog last week that Centripetal and other amici hoped the High Court would take the case to clarify the judicial recusal statute. [read post]