Search for: "We Don't Judge - We Defend"
Results 1881 - 1900
of 6,887
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Oct 2018, 2:45 pm
As much as we might crave more civility and truthfulness online, we can surely agree that we don’t want to live in a country where vehement political opinions involving no imminent threats are subject to litigation. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 5:00 pm
As these cases reveal, these are often emotional outbursts uttered in the heat of the moment, and they don't reflect the defendant's true intent. [read post]
9 Mar 2009, 5:30 am
Chances are you don’t remember much about the post other than the picture of Daisy Duke with backlighting à la Touched by an Angel. [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 4:11 am
We don't know, despite all the voir dire gurus, whether a juror is capable of understanding. [read post]
4 Jun 2012, 1:20 pm
Good job.But if the truth be told, I don't think she had to do this. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 10:48 am
Of course, we don't know how the en banc dynamics work, and perhaps some in the majority here would have concurred in the original panel opinion. [read post]
6 Jul 2014, 12:25 pm
Things don't start off so well right from the beginning. [read post]
5 Jun 2016, 11:05 pm
In particular the Court referred to an email from the third defendant to the fifth defendant thanking him for sending some some information statistics (related to pricings) which stated: "As mentioned to Andrew I don't think you can formally put these in any presentation as we would obviously be breaching confidentiality but would suggest that we keep in our back pocket to show on a nudge nudge wink wink basis to… [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 2:10 pm
" The University also reiterated to its employees that, under its social media guidelines, "[w]e don't delete comments or block users because they are critical or because we disagree with the sentiment or viewpoint. [read post]
19 Sep 2017, 5:02 pm
It doesn't like this result. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 1:05 pm
Copyright plaintiffs don't seem to view things this way, and resist every single adverse decision issued by judges. [read post]
20 Feb 2010, 6:19 am
End of story: While I don't think 48 months was warranted, or that it will deter anyone else, at least the judge didn't remand him. [read post]
2 Jan 2022, 4:05 am
To be honest, I don't think there is a "promising" one per se: Apple is more likely than not to defend what it has, and Epic will probably lose whatever little it accomplished, as a California UCL ruling that is at od [read post]
30 Sep 2010, 2:29 pm
Who says the folks at WLF don't have a sense of humor? [read post]
19 Jan 2019, 6:38 am
Local officials don't have to use it. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 12:49 pm
Don't obstruct me. [read post]
14 May 2010, 10:47 pm
But elected benches are by nature glaringly "fishy" (i.e., "...Hey and dang, Earl, the campaign money to the judge those guys gave last year...just don't seem right... [read post]
17 Sep 2014, 4:33 am
First off, I don't [expletive] with the Vistas. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 4:09 am
The problem is that these rulings don't make the papers. [read post]
24 Feb 2009, 10:25 am
And judges often don't foresee the unintended consequences of what they've done.Take, for example, In re OxyContin II, No. 700000/07, 2009 N.Y. [read post]
