Search for: "John Doe Defendants 1 - 5"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 2,259
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Jul 2013, 8:34 am
Sullivan (1991) (defending free speech restrictions placed on government-funded programs), one might have thought that John Roberts would have a cramped view of the First Amendment. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 8:25 am
.)____________ Kiobel and the E-word: Reflections on Transnational Environmental Responsibility in an Interconnected World (c) Sara L Seck, Faculty of Law, Western University, Canada: sseckwo.ca Introduction This comment will offer reflections on Kiobel [1] as a case about transnational environmental responsibility. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 10:18 am
Politics on the Supreme Court (5) Divergent Conservative Views. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 7:32 am
Baby Girl, in which the Court held that the Indian Child Welfare Act does not bar the termination of the biological father’s parental rights. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:02 am
This book is not meant to be the definitive guide to the legislative history of the NDAAs (though Lawfare covered virtually all of it), nor does it capture every single debate commentators had about the laws. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 2:10 pm
(We covered AMEX III on February 6, 2012 and again on June 5, 2012, after the Second Circuit’s denial of defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc). [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 3:49 pm
(Sotomayor, J., recused) March (5) Arizona v. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 3:21 pm
Michal Freedman, and Leon Gordis, “Reference Guide on Epidemiology,” in RMSE3ed 549, 582, 626 ; John B. [read post]
14 Jun 2013, 1:23 pm
The defendants are GoDaddy.com, LLC of Scottsdale, Ariz., Spirit Media of Phoenix, Ariz., Arthur Phoenix of Phoenix, Ariz. and John Does 1-5. [read post]
10 Jun 2013, 11:38 am
(Sotomayor, J., recused) March (5) Arizona v. [read post]
5 Jun 2013, 5:29 am
Cullen & Linda Rosenstock, “Principles and Practice of Occupational and Environmental Medicine,” chap. 1, in Linda Rosenstock & Marc Cullen, eds., Textbook of Clinical Occupational and Environmental Medicine 1, 13-14 (Phila. 1994); David F. [read post]
29 May 2013, 10:07 am
Prenda Law is the copyright “troll” firm that gained fame for sending suing thousands of “John Doe” BitTorrent users identified by only IP address and, after obtaining their identities from their ISPs, would threaten them with a lawsuit if they did not pay up. [read post]
23 May 2013, 8:01 am
Prenda Law became a well known copyright “troll” for suing large groups of “John Doe” defendants accused of infringing copyrights on BitTorrent. [read post]
22 May 2013, 1:28 pm
Prenda, previously, had attempted to sue thousands of “John Doe” defendants identified only by their IP address but, when some defendants fought back, it was revealed that the organizations Prenda was supposedly representing were, most likely, shell companies for the lawyers themselves. [read post]
21 May 2013, 10:33 am
My rebuttal of Rawls is more nearly on the level of "his argument assumes that 2+2=5." [read post]
15 May 2013, 2:01 pm
-------------You might be a cartoon bleeding heart libertarian if:1: You describe Rawls as offering the “philosophically most sophisticated” theory of social justice—and then decline to defend it when "David Friedman trenchantly critiques the maximin decision rule that lies at the heart of John Rawls’s theory of social justice."2. [read post]
13 May 2013, 9:53 am
The IP addresses were sued as “John Doe” defendants by AF Holdings, a company based on the island of Nevis that is known for suing suspected pirates of their owned films in a bid to obtain their information and attempt to procure quick settlements. [read post]
3 May 2013, 9:33 am
The defendant in question is listed only as John Doe and identified solely by his IP address. [read post]
1 May 2013, 1:36 pm
Cooley Law School (Cooley) filed a complaint in Ingham County against Defendant John Doe 1 (Doe 1) alleging defamation arising from statements that Doe 1 made on a website that, under a pseudonym, criticized Cooley. [read post]
30 Apr 2013, 9:45 am
The Supreme Court’s decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal, which heard substantive arguments before dismissing the appeal in a decision (CA 1) issued on August 5, 2004. [read post]
