Search for: "Shields v. Shields" Results 1781 - 1800 of 6,241
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Sep 2009, 9:25 am
Lesslie, 939 P.2d at 446 (defendant had expectation of privacy within restroom because it was legitimate to assume conversation was shielded from the public). [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 4:26 am by Evidence ProfBlogger
"Under common law, evidence of prior false allegations of sexual misconduct is admissible if the allegation was demonstrably false and similar to that with which the defendant was charged, or if the complaining witness has admitted that the prior accusation... [read post]
3 Apr 2014, 4:34 pm by Evidence ProfBlogger
Mississippi Rule of Evidence 412 generally precludes the admission of an alleged victim's past sexual behavior in a sexual assault case, subject to a few exceptions, including evidence of prior sexual acts between the victim and the accused. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 11:37 am by Evidence ProfBlogger
Like its federal counterpart, Iowa Rule of Evidence 5.607 provides that The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness. [read post]
24 Oct 2016, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
This rule both cements the tie between husband and child and provides a protective shield against claims by donors. [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 10:57 am
The decision from California's First District Court of Appeal in Sonoma County Employees' Retirement Association v. [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 5:10 am by Cyberleagle
Under the Online Safety Bill the liability shields remain untouched. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 1:52 am by gmlevine
Whois IDentity Shield and Vertical Axis, D2010-1187 (WIPO September 17, 2010) and BzzAgent, Inc. v. bzzaget.com c/o Nameview Inc. [read post]
28 Aug 2019, 4:44 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The plaintiff’s allegations of “intentional harm,” which the Supreme Court properly interpreted as stating a cause of action alleging prima facie tort, were unsupported by facts demonstrating that the defendants acted with “malicious intent or disinterested malevolence” in the prior action (Ahmed Elkoulily, M.D., P.C. v New York State Catholic Healthplan, Inc., 153 AD3d 768, 772 [2017]; see Dorce v Gluck, 140 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2016]; Wiggins… [read post]
4 Jun 2019, 4:17 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The plaintiff’s allegations of “intentional harm,” which the Supreme Court properly interpreted as stating a cause of action alleging prima facie tort, were unsupported by facts demonstrating that the defendants acted with “malicious intent or disinterested malevolence” in the prior action (Ahmed Elkoulily, M.D., P.C. v New York State Catholic Healthplan, Inc., 153 AD3d 768, 772 [2017]; see Dorce v Gluck, 140 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2016]; Wiggins… [read post]