Search for: "Defendant Doe 2"
Results 1441 - 1460
of 40,582
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Aug 2020, 4:01 am
The mark does not describe a "quality, feature, function, or characteristic" of the goods, and therefore it is not merely descriptive under Section 2(e)(1). [read post]
8 Jan 2020, 4:28 am
But since 10th May 2018 Ed’s royalties for the song have been frozen after singer-songwriter Sam Chokri (known as Sami Switch) claimed that 'Shape of you' was copied from Sam’s song 'Oh why'.Sheeran and fellow felineAs a result, Sheeran, together with Steven Muccutcheon (songwriter, second claimant), John Mcdaid (songwriter, the one from Snow Patrol, third claimant), Sony Music, Rokstone Music, Spirit B, Kobalt Music (publishing companies, assignees and licensees,… [read post]
18 Mar 2013, 8:31 pm
(2) Did plaintiff sufficiently allege undue influence on the part of defendant, who held decedent's power of attorney? [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 7:11 am
2/1/12). [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 1:22 pm
How does the state prove recklessness? [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 7:17 am
The court’s decision reinforced that even when spoliation efforts are ultimately unsuccessful, and therefore Rule 37(e) does not apply because information is not “lost,” sanctions remain available under Rule 37(b)(2) and the court’s inherent authority to address litigant misconduct, including outright fraud on the court. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 7:17 am
The court’s decision reinforced that even when spoliation efforts are ultimately unsuccessful, and therefore Rule 37(e) does not apply because information is not “lost,” sanctions remain available under Rule 37(b)(2) and the court’s inherent authority to address litigant misconduct, including outright fraud on the court. [read post]
6 Oct 2020, 7:17 am
The court’s decision reinforced that even when spoliation efforts are ultimately unsuccessful, and therefore Rule 37(e) does not apply because information is not “lost,” sanctions remain available under Rule 37(b)(2) and the court’s inherent authority to address litigant misconduct, including outright fraud on the court. [read post]
25 Jun 2014, 7:11 am
Intuit, Inc., 2-12-cv-00180 (TXED June 20, 2014, Order) (Bryson, C.J.) [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 5:12 am
Defendants argue that summary judgment should be affirmed because “a trespass to property, negligent or intentional, is a common law tort; it does not infringe the federal constitution. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 7:00 am
The post Part 2: Sandbagging in M&A – is silence truly golden? [read post]
11 Dec 2021, 9:34 am
” (Tautology alert #2). [read post]
11 May 2020, 10:09 am
Jeffries 18-4081 was: does the Government have to prove proximate cause between the defendant's actions and the death? [read post]
1 Jun 2021, 4:14 pm
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014). [read post]
10 Sep 2023, 6:03 pm
Where the harm does not result from the FDUPTA violation, the claim fails for lack of causation. [read post]
14 Nov 2009, 7:07 am
(See Part 2 of 2.) [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 7:51 pm
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) issue as to one defendant. [read post]
14 Aug 2008, 5:29 pm
Civ.P . 26(a)(2)(B). [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 2:36 pm
” During the cross-examination, the defendants’ counsel used the § 2-622 report as a prior inconsistent statement. [read post]
29 Aug 2016, 5:13 am
(A federal judge in Texas recently preliminarily enjoined the DOE and other federal agencies from applying or using the Guidelines.) [read post]
