Search for: "Unknown Defendant No. 1" Results 1421 - 1440 of 2,513
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Dec 2013, 5:41 am by Jonathan H. Adler
 Here’s how Mark Steyn pithily summarizes the developments: 1. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 12:05 am by Orin Kerr
(1) Does the Mosaic Theory Apply to the Data at Issue in the NSA Program? [read post]
16 Dec 2013, 12:23 pm
Doe Defendants 1 - 10, the identities of whom are currently unknown, have also been accused of the illegal acts alleged. [read post]
14 Dec 2013, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
Brooks between January 1, 2004, and January 31, 2012, conspired with others and persons unknown to commit misconduct in public office. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 10:50 am by Bill Marler
  The latest food outbreaks come from non-traditional pathogens and foods that came from overseas – the number of affected people is still unknown. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 5:52 pm by TDot
For reasons still unknown to me — I’m assuming the resumed trial (and yesterday’s conviction) of NC NAACP chairman Rev. [read post]
4 Dec 2013, 6:31 am
The unknown female caller claimed to be the wife of Billy Johnson who had sent the e-mail to Joyce Kaufman. . . . [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 7:34 am by Mark S. Humphreys
Lumpkin further reported that he also found minimal hail damage from an unknown previous hail storm. [read post]
1 Dec 2013, 7:00 am by Daniel Byman
In the depths of the depression, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt cautioned Americans against letting their imaginations loose on the unknown. [read post]
27 Nov 2013, 1:49 pm by Nathalie Martin
This chart contains some of the details on these actions. 2012 CFPB Enforcement Comparison Defendant Industry Type of action Result Remedies for consumers Customers Benefiting Penalty Capital One Bank Credit Administrative Consent Order $140 Million 2 Million $25 Million American Express Centurion Bank Credit Administrative Consent Order $85 Million 250,000 $27.5 Million Discover Bank Credit Administrative Consent Order $200 Million 3.5… [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 7:22 pm by Dennis Crouch
First, the cost of defending against patent infringement allegations is high and rising. [read post]
18 Nov 2013, 3:07 pm by Eugene Volokh
But if the judge rules against defendant, the trial goes on, and the defendant isn’t entitled to immediately appeal; the defendant has to wait for the appeal until after trial, when the losing party can indeed appeal. [read post]
15 Nov 2013, 7:09 am by Allison Tussey
As a result of this activity, Shabazz defrauded property owners and unsuspecting third parties of money and property valued over $1 million. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 12:32 pm by Jonathan Bailey
Let me know via Twitter @plagiarismtoday. 1: Another Judge Slams Prenda Over Porn-Download Lawsuits First off today, Emma Woollacott at Forbes reports that Minnesota Federal Judge Franklin Noel has ordered controversial copyright “troll” organization Prenda Law to hand back settlements, ranging between $3,500 and $6,000 plus defendant costs, after failing to prove that their “client”, AF Holdings, actually holds the copyrights to the works they originally… [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 5:08 pm by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.
However, you can also be charged with driving on a suspended license, which is a class 1 misdemeanor. [read post]
4 Nov 2013, 3:24 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Accordingly, the Court affirmed so much of the order of the Supreme Court as granted those branches of the defendant's motion which were to dismiss the following charges in the indictment: endangering the welfare of a child in violation of Penal Law § 260.10(1), harassment in the second degree in violation of Penal Law § 240.26(1), and menacing in the third degree in violation of Penal Law § 120.15. [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 3:02 pm by Stephen Bilkis
CPL 30.10(4)(a)(ii) excludes from the statute of limitations "any period following the commission of the offense during which the whereabouts of the defendant were continuously unknown and continuously unascertainable by the exercise of reasonable diligence." [read post]
1 Nov 2013, 8:41 am by Stephen Wermiel
In that ruling, the Court held that personal jurisdiction may be determined based on a three-part test: (1) the defendant committed an intentional act; (2) the act was aimed at the forum state; and (3) the harm caused would be experienced in the forum state. [read post]