Search for: "Defendant Doe 2"
Results 1701 - 1720
of 40,585
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Apr 2018, 1:05 pm
Code Regs. tit. 27, § 25705 (c)(2). [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 12:46 pm
Symantec Corp., et. al., 2-08-cv-00484 (TXED November 14, 2011, Order) (Folsom, J.) [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 5:01 am
Does 1-254, as Identified in Exh. 2, decided Saturday by Judge Matthew F. [read post]
7 Jun 2016, 6:36 am
(following factors should be considered when deciding to uphold conviction after three hung juries: (1) the likelihood of new or additional evidence; 2) the seriousness of the offenses charged; 3) the defendant’s criminal record; 4) the professional conduct of the parties; 5) the extent of the defendant’s incarceration; 6) the strength of the state’s case; and 7) the victim’s desire for continued prosecution.) [read post]
2 Sep 2012, 1:36 pm
Brain Damage Films, 2:11cv414 (8/10/12) Judge: Rodney Gilstrap Holding: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss GRANTED in part. [read post]
21 May 2008, 10:01 am
This holding does not affect our very long-standing policy that a defendant who can establish in a post-conviction proceeding that his plea was coerced or unintelligent is entitled to have his conviction set aside. * * * Moreover, we do not mean to alter our case law invalidating provisions that waive post-conviction rights. * * * Creech argues that, despite the express language of the written plea agreement, he should not be deemed to have waived his right to appellate review of… [read post]
20 Nov 2017, 5:25 am
In response, VisionAid filed two counterclaims, seeking declarations that: (1) the insurer’s duty to defend the employee’s suit included a duty to prosecute the counterclaim; and (2) a conflict of interest entitled VisionAid to select its own attorney to defend it in the former employee’s lawsuit. [read post]
26 Apr 2021, 1:42 pm
Palomar-Santiago’s briefing does not rely solely on the explicit terms previously offered by the 9th Circuit for its rule. [read post]
8 Sep 2013, 12:38 pm
They assert that the accusatory instrument does indeed set forth the time of the assault as "on or about April 2, 2007, at approximately 6:18 pm." [read post]
4 May 2017, 2:59 am
App. ___ (May 2, 2017). [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 5:00 am
Two recent appellate court decisions suggest that it does. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 7:50 pm
The Defendant, however, does not present a case. [read post]
13 Jul 2015, 8:41 am
State Agencies § 38a-790-8 (2). [read post]
2 Aug 2018, 4:03 pm
An order of removal does not strip the defendant of his status. [read post]
30 Sep 2013, 10:48 am
The defendant contends that the court improperly concluded that the record does not substantiate the commission's decision to grant the special permit. [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 7:29 am
Twitter, Inc., 2-16-cv-02338 (NVD July 23, 2018, Order) (Boulware, II, USDJ) [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 6:22 am
.): 26 Delbert Motion 30 Opposition 31 Reply 38 DCT Order An excerpt: This matter cornes before the Court on the defendant’s motion [2] to dismiss the amended complaint or, alternatively, to compel arbitration. [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 12:54 pm
Defendants' first contention was that the '209 Patent was obvious. [read post]
21 Nov 2014, 6:25 pm
If the plaintiff does not satisfy Section 616(d), the plaintiff is required to have sued the proper defendant within the applicable statute of limitations. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 10:47 pm
§ 2G2.2(b)(3)(B) can be satisfied by showing simply that the defendant (1) had images of child pornography and (2) used file-sharing software. [read post]
