Search for: "Party 1 v. Party 2"
Results 101 - 120
of 37,742
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
The first cause of action alleges a violation of article XI, § 1 of the New York State Constitution, the Education Article, which guarantees students an opportunity for a sound basic education. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
The first cause of action alleges a violation of article XI, § 1 of the New York State Constitution, the Education Article, which guarantees students an opportunity for a sound basic education. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:51 am
“To recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiff must establish that the attorney (1) failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by a member of the legal community and (2) that such negligence was a proximate cause of the loss in question” (Ackerman v Nathan L. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm
Why TikTok thinks the law is unconstitutional Petitioners provide four grounds on which they believe the law is unconstitutional: (1) the First Amendment, (2) Article 1’s prohibition of bills of attainder, (3) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (4) the Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment First Amendment: Petitioners assert that the law significantly limits their First Amendment rights, impacting both the company and the free speech rights of… [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm
Why TikTok thinks the law is unconstitutional Plaintiffs provide four grounds on which they believe the law is unconstitutional: (1) the First Amendment, (2) Article 1’s prohibition of bills of attainder, (3) the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (4) the Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment First Amendment: Plaintiffs assert that the law significantly limits their First Amendment rights, impacting both the company and the free speech rights of… [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:04 pm
[2] See, e.g., Bridges, 2022 WL 2643968; Melvin v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:43 am
Source: USPTO Rothschild moved to dismiss the complaint under the Second Circuit’s Rogers v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:20 am
v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 6:12 am
Building Service Employees Health, 789 F.2d at 1377 (9th Cir. 1986) 2 Spinedex Physical Therapy USA Inc. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:01 pm
” Market Concentration Referencing the Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI) measure of market concentration, the FTC argues that the proposed acquisition will both (1) create a firm with a market share over 30 percent and increase the HHI by more than 100 points and (2) is likely to create or enhance market power as the post-merger HHI exceeds 1800 and increases the HHI by more than 100 points. [read post]
6 May 2024, 2:34 pm
The seller then has four options: 1) ignore the APEX Agreement; 2) opt into the APEX program and proceed with a third-party determining whether the product likely infringes the patent; 3) resolve the claim directly with the patent owner; or 4) file a lawsuit for declaratory judgment of noninfringement. [read post]
6 May 2024, 11:57 am
SCARFE J.P., R. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:43 am
IOEngine, LLC v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 9:20 am
See James v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 5:58 am
Peugh et al. v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 5:23 am
[2.] [read post]
6 May 2024, 5:01 am
In Doe v. [read post]
6 May 2024, 3:32 am
Under New York law, a testifying expert can rely on hearsay as a basis for his opinion only where (1) the out-of-court material is of a kind accepted in the profession as reliable as a basis in forming a professional opinion, and (2) there is evidence presented establishing the reliability of the out-of-court material referred to by the witness (Hambsch v New York City Tr. [read post]
5 May 2024, 9:44 am
We hold that such speech is attributable to the State only if the official (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when he spoke on social media Some problems: First, the court talks about attributing “speech” to the government, when the actual issue is whether an accountholder’s account blocks or content removal constitute an impermissible restriction on third-party speech. [read post]
5 May 2024, 4:00 am
Pour éviter toute demande de remise pouvant découler de la lecture de la déclaration de la victime, il serait préférable que le juge, en vertu de l’article 722 (2) C.Cr. et de son obligation de vérifier si une telle déclaration est ou sera déposée, s’assure que celle-ci est remise aux parties avant de fixer l’audience sur la peine. [read post]
