Search for: "In Re Amendments to Rules of Civil Procedure"
Results 1141 - 1160
of 2,353
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Mar 2011, 3:06 am
(Patents Post Grant Blog) District Court N D Ohio: Qui Tam provisions of false marking statute are unconstitutional even if considered civil or civil-criminal hybrid: Unique Product Solutions, Limited v. [read post]
14 Oct 2013, 3:35 pm
S A FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, d/b/a OEC LATIN AMERICA, Appellee. 3rd District.Civil procedure -- Dismissal -- Failure to prosecute -- Error to grant motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution where movant did not provide required sixty-day notice required by revised rule and neither movant nor trial court recognized three instances of record activity preceding dismissal -- Any filing of record during applicable time frame is sufficient to… [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 4:28 pm
The same cannot be said for the so-called “Lautenberg Amendment. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 9:22 pm
Question two is a pretty representative Civil Procedure question. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 12:18 pm
Narrowly written criminal libel laws, which adhere to First Amendment rules, are constitutionally permissible: Civil and criminal libel cases "are subject to the same constitutional limitations. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 3:54 pm
The Code of Civil Procedure is amended bychanging Section 13-202 as follows: (735 ILCS 5/13-202) (from Ch. 110, par. 13-202) Sec. 13-202. [read post]
23 Dec 2010, 10:51 am
Chicago, holding that the Due Process and Privileges & Immunities clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment require the application of the Heller rule to the states. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 5:01 am
Steve Bannon put it best: “We’re going hard on the charge,” the former Trump chief strategist told Vox. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 10:00 am
Digital River’s unilateral decision to block discovery into a topic clearly and unambiguously identified in a 30(b)(6) deposition notice is not permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court’s Local Rules; in fact, such unilateral action blatantly usurps the Court’s function as the gatekeeper in matters of discovery. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
However, Angell failed to submit a motion with the proposed amendment as required for relation back under Section 2-616(d) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 10:25 am
Keller also involved a significant procedural complication. [read post]
10 Feb 2007, 4:35 pm
The Board, recognizing that its position conflicts with the majority interpretation of Rule 26(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, supported its decision with reasons given in the August 2006 American Bar Association report that advocates amending Rule 26 to limit expert discovery. [read post]
20 Aug 2010, 3:53 pm
We’re civilized, after all. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 4:00 am
In its analysis, the Arizona Court of Appeals compared scope and application of the statutory provision ARS § 25-317(G) and Rule 60(c)(5) Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 4:00 am
In its analysis, the Arizona Court of Appeals compared scope and application of the statutory provision ARS § 25-317(G) and Rule 60(c)(5) Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 6:41 am
Q: Is a check from another title company for greater than $1,000.00 is exempt from the rule. [read post]
1 Dec 2010, 5:54 pm
DukesDocket: 10-277Issue(s): (1) Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and, if so, under what circumstances; and (2) whether the lower court's order certifying a class conforms to the requirements of Title VII, the Due Process Clause, the Seventh Amendment, the Rules Enabling Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.Certiorari-Stage Documents:Opinion below (9th… [read post]
27 Jan 2012, 11:59 am
First Amended Complaint, Tompkins v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 9:50 am
The new petition is here; the state Supreme Court ruling is here. [read post]
2 Aug 2023, 11:14 am
Here, where both legal and equitable claims were present, the court held that it would empanel an “advisory” jury on the issue of equitable damages under Rule 39(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[4] Notably, with an advisory jury, the court would not be bound by the jury’s determination. [read post]
