Search for: "Wells v. Smith" Results 1521 - 1540 of 4,913
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Feb 2022, 3:26 pm by Josh Blackman
Recall that Judge Smith would have granted rehearing en banc in the ACA case that became California v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 7:12 am by Brian Shiffrin
It is well settled that a defendant's statutory right to testify before the grand jury " must be scrupulously protected' " (People v Smith, 87 NY2d 715, 721, quoting People v Corrigan, 80 NY2d 326, 332). [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 9:57 pm by Florian Mueller
Apple may very well be able to convince the court that Epic and its engine licensees would be affected only after a number of months (at least).Primarily, however, I guess Apple will argue that Epic should simply comply with its contractual obligations until its complaint has been adjudicated. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 5:23 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
" The dissent by Judge Smith seems to view this statement as the position of the majority of the court as well. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 5:23 am by Silverberg Zalantis LLP
" The dissent by Judge Smith seems to view this statement as the position of the majority of the court as well. [read post]
21 Jun 2012, 8:13 am
On March 2012, Sonn & Erez went to a final hearing on Murphy v. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 7:49 am
 But it seems to me that his article could be usefully read as a (partial) defense of the practice of citing foreign court decisions as well as state court decisions. [read post]
10 Jul 2007, 2:06 am
Riddle, 305 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir.2002), held that the bona fide error defense is applicable to mistakes of law and collected the cases finding the same.As for the Sixth Circuit, plaintiff relies on the decision of Smith v. [read post]
2 Nov 2017, 5:09 pm by INFORRM
He also called evidence from a teammate, Dwayne Smith, who testified that the masseuse had come into the change room, but that Gayle did not expose himself to her. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
" As the Court of Appeals held in Youmans v Smith, 153 NY 214, “The purpose of the absolute privilege afforded to communications made in the course of judicial proceedings is well established and clearly stated: the due process of ‘clients should not be imperiled by subjecting their legal advisers to the constant fear of suits for libel or slander. [read post]