Search for: "Scott Dodson"
Results 121 - 140
of 170
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Oct 2020, 11:15 am
Moderator: Michele Anglade (FIU College of Law) Introduction: Leonard Strickman (Founding Dean Emeritus, FIU College of Law) Panelists: Richard Albert (University of Texas) Deborah Dinner (Emory University) Scott Dodson (UC-Hastings)… [read post]
10 Aug 2016, 4:00 am
Hastings Professors David Levine and Scott Dodson had an excellent and detailed summary of the oral argument at SCOCAblog in June. [read post]
18 Mar 2008, 12:42 pm
Scott Dodson, of the University of Arkansas writes a swell article on how the Supreme Court screwed up Bowles v. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 5:08 am
Ct. 2360 (2007), and on Professor Scott Dodson's critique of Bowles at 102 Nw. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 2:33 am
Este fue escrito a base de un estudio de Scott Dodson y Ami A. [read post]
16 Feb 2016, 10:27 am
” Lastly, Ami Dodson and Scott Dodson at Literary Hub present findings from a “lighthearted” study suggesting Scalia was the “most literary justice. [read post]
18 May 2009, 3:12 pm
As Scott Dodson argues here, it is problematic that the Court has reintroduced two tiers of facts (conclusory v. non-conclusory), a remnant of fact pleading (which distinguished between evidentiary and ultimate facts). [read post]
21 Jul 2009, 12:44 pm
Scott Dodson, Against Twombly & Iqbal -- A Reply to Drug & Device Law Post, June 5, 2009. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 2:51 pm
: Working Together to Advance the Profession," with Wendy Kamenshine, Nick Diehl, Deputy Ombudsman at the American Red Cross, and others;Breakout session on "Assisting Fellow Federal Ombuds & Justifying Your Existence: How and Why," with Scott Deyo, Ombudsman at the DOD Office of Inspector General;Breakout session on challenging Ombuds case scenarios with Marianne Ketels;Panel on "Records Management – How Can I Comply With Federal Requirements and Be An… [read post]
15 Nov 2023, 4:00 am
As Professor Scott Dodson has documented, Congress has allowed the Court wide leeway in promulgating the Rules of the Supreme Court. [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 10:43 am
In an article in the Michigan Law Review, Professor Scott Dodson acknowledges that problem and argues that the solution is to permit limited pre-dismissal discovery to give plaintiffs an opportunity to gather the facts necessary to meet the plausibility standard. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 7:31 am
Another recent book, The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, edited by Scott Dodson, offers a diverse perspective on Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her influence on the world by prominent court watchers and leading scholars. [read post]
25 Feb 2015, 3:13 am
” Briefly: At Hamilton and Griffin on Rights, Scott Dodson discusses his new book on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. [read post]
22 May 2007, 3:42 pm
Twombly, making it more difficult for private plaintiffs to file antitrust claims against large companies; Professor Scott Dodson weighs in here at Civil Procedure Prof Blog; at Volokh Conspiracy, Einer Elhauge has these thoughts; Patti Waldmeir of the Financial Times has this story; in the Wall Street Journal, Jess Bravin reports here (subscription req'd); and Peter Lattman has this post at the WSJ.com Law Blog. [read post]
15 Jan 2008, 9:23 am
Scott Dodson at University of Arkansas Law gave his students the chance to undo that momentous decision in this final exam. [read post]
20 May 2014, 6:31 am
.'" That about covers it. 2) Scott Dodson (Hastings) points me to this Ninth Circuit decision, written by Fed Courts guru Judge William Fletcher. [read post]
1 Nov 2022, 10:22 am
Scott Dodson, ed., The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (2022). [read post]
21 Jan 2012, 12:55 pm
(Scott Dodson and Adam Steinman also have insightful pieces on Twombly and Iqbal — New Pleading, New Discovery” and “The Pleading Problem,” respectively). [read post]
3 Mar 2010, 5:33 am
I am not sure either effort works--a point on which Scott Dodson, writing at Civ Pro/Fed Courts Blog, agrees). [read post]
12 Sep 2011, 12:26 pm
Professor Scott Dodson, in his post “Squeezing class actions,” argues that the Supreme Court is being too restrictive in its reading of the class action prerequisites in Rule 23. [read post]
