Search for: "C.D.2"
Results 1301 - 1320
of 1,458
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Nov 2013, 12:16 pm
(Eugene Volokh) Here’s one more brief that the UCLA First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic submitted last few week. [read post]
27 Aug 2010, 2:41 pm
Celotex Corp., 1988 WL 1001970, at *2 (E.D. [read post]
13 Sep 2021, 11:55 am
Under the 2014 agreement, HTC paid Ericsson a lump sum of $75 million for a 2-year license to use Ericsson’s 2/3/4G SEPs. [read post]
15 Feb 2022, 2:05 pm
As I have noted in prior posts on this site, the surge in special purpose acquisition corporation (SPAC) IPO transactions over the last two years has also meant a wave of SPAC-related lawsuits. [read post]
19 May 2022, 9:42 am
[2 [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 5:00 am
Federal Express Corp., 249 F.R.D. 580 (C.D. [read post]
2 Sep 2009, 11:22 pm
Apr. 2, 2008) (Michigan statute); Alfred v. [read post]
25 Jan 2024, 2:51 pm
Rather, courts have generally limited Section 533 to: (1) acts done with subjective intent to inflict injury,[iv] (2) acts that are inherently or necessarily harmful whether or not the actor subjectively intended harm, or (3) acts performed with knowledge that damage is highly probably or substantially certain to result. [read post]
16 Jul 2016, 1:48 pm
(Piatetsky), No. 1095 C.D. 2015, Pa. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 5:00 am
., 2011 WL 147714 (C.D. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm
Figure 2: 2. [read post]
8 May 2012, 5:15 pm
§§ 362(d)(1) and 362(d)(2). [read post]
5 Dec 2017, 12:01 pm
The district court set bond in this case at $5 million. 2 We entered a temporary stay of the preliminary injunction pending resolution of this appeal. [read post]
14 Feb 2009, 11:56 am
” Rule 23(b)(2) classes are often called “injunctive” classes. [read post]
24 Nov 2017, 8:30 am
C.D. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 3:46 pm
Zobmondo Entertainment, LLC, 2012 WL 8134013 (C.D. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 6:37 am
CV 13-05167, 2015 WL 4517846 (C.D. [read post]
27 Jun 2023, 11:00 am
EDCV 20-2324 JGB (SPx) (C.D. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 2:57 am
In re GNC Corp., -- F.3d --, 2015 WL 3798174 (4thCir. [read post]
6 May 2019, 7:53 am
The Fifth Circuit wrote, for example, that “non-actionable ‘puffery’ comes in at least two possible forms: (1) an exaggerated, blustering, and boasting statement upon which no reasonable buyer would be justified in relying; or (2) a general claim of superiority over comparable products that is so vague that it can be understood as nothing more than a mere expression of opinion. [read post]
