Search for: "Unknown Defendant No. 1"
Results 1641 - 1660
of 2,513
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2012, 9:51 am
Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics) actions for damages for unconstitutional actions committed by federal agents. [read post]
31 May 2012, 6:51 pm
A sampling of today’s headlines: (1) DOMA RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL BY FEDERAL APPEALS COURT (2) DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT OVERTURNED! [read post]
31 May 2012, 5:43 pm
The rule in Bonnard v Perryman creates a strong presumption against the granting of an interim injunction to restrain an alleged libel where the defendant intends to plead justification. [read post]
31 May 2012, 11:05 am
It logically follows that the State AG has the authority to settle and release a private litigant’s claims.The 1998 Settlement Agreement entered into by the State AG and [defendant] expressly released and barred [copycat plaintiffs’] consumer protection claims . . . and is binding on [those plaintiffs].Curtis, slip op. at 2-3, syllabus points 1, 3 (emphasis added). [read post]
30 May 2012, 11:33 pm
It is important to remember that Johnson is, as with all U.S. defendants, innocent until proven otherwise. [read post]
30 May 2012, 3:00 am
Idiopathic – arising spontaneously or from an obscure or unknown cause. [read post]
24 May 2012, 9:34 am
Moreover, the fact that the action would proceed against other defendants did not disturb the Court of Appeal since those other defendants had not sought a stay. [read post]
23 May 2012, 2:38 pm
Moreover, the fact that the action would proceed against other defendants did not disturb the Court of Appeal since those other defendants had not sought a stay. [read post]
22 May 2012, 9:41 pm
N.J.S.A. 2C:64–1a(1). [read post]
22 May 2012, 4:37 am
(I invite other suggestions for overcoming the cognitive limits imposed by privilege at the post’s end). 1. [read post]
21 May 2012, 7:07 am
John Does 1–245, 2012 WL 1744838 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
21 May 2012, 4:18 am
” Rule 33(b)(1), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. [read post]
21 May 2012, 3:00 am
By this I mean that you can’t serve process via email if (1) the defendant is in a Hague Service Convention state; (2) the defendant’s address is known (such that the Convention applies); and (3) the law of the destination state does not provide for service by email so as to bring Article 19 into play. [read post]
16 May 2012, 6:34 am
It was descending a steep hill but for unknown reasons came to almost a complete stop at the centre of the road. [read post]
15 May 2012, 2:09 pm
In fact, possibly, had a similar case been brought in Canada, the result could be 99-0 for the defendants, not only 94-5. [read post]
11 May 2012, 2:27 am
The names of some of the defendants give the story away: YouTube, Google, Yahoo! [read post]
8 May 2012, 5:07 pm
The claimants suspected the defendant and sought an injunction prohibiting the defendant and unknown persons from disclosing the information to the first claimant’s wife and his adult children from a previous marriage. [read post]
7 May 2012, 5:00 am
Here, however, the court ruled that the defendant slit its own throat by not putting on any defense. [read post]
3 May 2012, 1:02 pm
The parties wrangle over the statute’s wording and construction, and the court sides in favor of the defendant with respect to these arguments. [read post]
3 May 2012, 8:50 am
Righthaven’s trademark was successfully sold to an unknown bidder for $1,025 in a similar auction. [read post]
