Search for: "Does 1 - 28" Results 101 - 120 of 15,247
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Sep 2015, 12:30 pm by John Ehrett
  Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case. [read post]
31 Mar 2007, 4:20 am
But the court does not believe the distinction is material, and the omission of the hotel information does not amount to a material omission. [read post]
28 Apr 2008, 10:34 am
Does 1-19, the case targeting George Washington University students, the judge has denied the defendants' motion to quash the subpoena and vacate the Court's ex parte discovery order.April 28, 2008, order and opinion denying motion to vacate ex parte discovery order* (-- F. [read post]
29 May 2012, 12:21 pm by Rekha Arulanantham
Doe (June 11), the case that ensured equal access to public education to all children, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status. [read post]
28 Nov 2010, 10:06 am by Dwight Sullivan
  Does anyone know whether the Coast Guard Court will be hearing an oral argument and, if so, when? [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 8:15 am
Class Action Fairness Act lawyers know that 28 U.S.C. s. 1453(c)(1), the appeal provision of CAFA, states that application to appeal a remand order must be made "not less than 7 days after entry of the order. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 8:36 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Issue number 1 is: when does a party waive her objection to her opponent's failure to comply with the 28-day deadline to file post-trial motions? [read post]
24 Jun 2010, 7:02 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
Are bad calls just "part of the game," or does baseball need appeals? [read post]
28 Jan 2022, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
Cuellar and His Wife, Associates ABC News – Mike Levine | Published: 1/21/2022 A grand jury probe that led to the raid of U.S. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 9:00 am by Edward M. McNally
N17C-03-1682 (November 28, 2017) This is an interesting decision because it explains: (1) when a fraud claim may be brought despite anti-reliance provisions in a contract and (2) when a fraud claim does not overlap and is thereby precluded by a contract claim based on similar facts. [read post]