Search for: "In re: Ortiz v."
Results 101 - 120
of 168
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jan 2012, 2:01 pm
The Seventh Circuit, in a case called In re Ortiz, held the bankruptcy court could not hear claims that a health care company had violated Wisconsin state law by making bankruptcy court filings containing private medical information of bankruptcy debtors. [read post]
21 Dec 2011, 8:33 am
In Ortiz v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 11:23 am
Ortiz, if re-convicted, could, of course, receive up to life in prison. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 10:14 am
Ortiz v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 4:30 am
Res. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 9:43 am
Res. [read post]
8 Sep 2011, 8:16 am
Other decisions, including Ortiz v Fibreboard Corp., In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litigation, and In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, cut back at the viability of classes certified under Rule 23(b)(1) or 23(c). [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 2:37 pm
Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 620 (1997) and Ortiz v. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 6:05 pm
” Czech v. [read post]
17 Jul 2011, 9:25 pm
http://t.co/MLtgKyN Read "Treatment of Interest on Nondischargeable Debts" by Nicholas Ortiz, citing 1st Cir case that interest does accrue. http://t.co/EpUyakW 4th-Severance comp earned post-firing entirely payable per §507(a)(4); no proration to amt attrib to 180 days prefiling. http://t.co/NgQsaA8 D-MD: 363 Sale limits successor's environ liab per debtor's 1997 EPA Consent Decree to post-363 sale hazardous release. http://t.co/ASjLJy1 … [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:32 pm
” Ortiz v. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 2:32 pm
” Ortiz v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 11:52 am
The implications for antitrust cases are significant and evident from decisions such as In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litig., 552 F.3d 305 (3d Cir. 2009), In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litig., 522 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2008), and Blades v. [read post]
10 May 2011, 3:47 am
Let's pretend it never happened, and we're sure the jury will ignore it. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 5:39 am
Backstory: Ortiz-Hernandez v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 6:14 am
Ortiz, normally a party has to file a cross-appeal if it supports the lower court’s judgment, but wants to change it in some way; a cross-appeal isn’t necessary if you’re simply arguing that the court’s judgement can be upheld for another reason. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 3:37 am
If you say, “Geez, there’s no way that’s admissible evidence,” you’re right. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 6:13 am
In Ortiz v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
The Court also filled out its March 3 argument calendar by re-setting some previously granted cases: Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 6:48 am
Applying Ortiz v. [read post]
