Search for: "We Don't Judge - We Defend"
Results 1961 - 1980
of 6,915
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Feb 2009, 1:07 pm
SMITH: --don't interrupt me again--MR. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 7:33 am
Sept. 10, 2010) (we're just going to call it Zyprexa). [read post]
24 Jul 2014, 7:25 pm
Don't know who that is, though. [read post]
6 Jul 2016, 2:28 am
Small-government advocates and civil libertarians should appreciate her while we have her, because you'll miss her once she's gone. * Keller and Yeary each also had eight concurring/dissenting opinions; no other judge had more than one.** Yeary, Newell and Richardson were only on the court for eight months of FY 2015, which ended 8/31/15.*** As long as they don't re-nominate Merrick Garland. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 1:32 pm
It is legitimate for courts to decide such issues only when they are enforcing the Constitution as originally understood and ratified by the people, and not enforcing the justices' own views as to what is good public policy.While I agree with Calabresi that judges should follow originalism, I don't believe that requires that they always ignore precedent. [read post]
31 Mar 2022, 11:00 pm
U.S. antitrust law is defendant-friendly, and the district judge made a number of factual determinations to which the "clear error" standard of review applies. [read post]
27 Jun 2022, 2:43 pm
You don't make it to the cover of Time Magazine by standing for conservative judicial principles. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 6:10 am
We must say no. [read post]
30 Oct 2009, 7:41 am
We don't do that because we are psychologists or social workers or personal counselors who can help them with their mental illness. [read post]
22 Apr 2007, 6:48 pm
Alas, this system has gone down the tubes because we had a mass exodus from my office and we don't have enough senior attorneys to keep the rotation up. [read post]
26 Aug 2009, 11:18 pm
[We don't usually offer advice to plaintiffs' counsel on this blog, but here we just can't resist: If you're going to assert a claim of privilege, make sure you give a "reason why the privilege[] might apply. [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 2:21 pm
If he did indeed kill his wife and then steal her money, that seems wrong, and I don't particularly want him to get away with it.On the third hand -- let's call it the left leg -- Judge Goodwin has a decent point in his dissent. [read post]
9 May 2008, 10:10 am
The Journal opts for high dudgeon here--"Liberals claim they are only fighting for "due process," but they are doing so for foreign enemies who want to kill innocents and don't deserve such protections. [read post]
12 Jul 2022, 10:53 pm
" Justice Kagan, for the majority, joked "you might be ready to absorb the relevant statutory language (but don't bet on it). [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 9:35 pm
While I don't want to read too much into that remark by a judge at yesterday's hearing, it was basically said that the statute is what it is even if Samsung was right that an unapportioned disgorgement was "absurd". [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 3:14 pm
“Don’t I know that,” Judge Pohl responds. [read post]
20 May 2007, 4:01 pm
But the genesis of the that idea was based on courthouse chatter that our State Attorney is out of the office a lot- and we don't mean in Tallahassee lobbying against the defendant's right to conduct cross examination. [read post]
22 Jan 2022, 8:46 am
Maybe I should say something more like, You gets what you get and you don't get upset. [read post]
2 Jun 2015, 12:18 pm
It's the reason why we have been subjected to an ongoing torrent of reexamination proceedings from them.The real story can be found in the trial transcripts and in the court docket, both of which are fully accessible to any journalist interested in discovering the truth - or you could just take Apple's word for it.The italicized text taken from This Inventor Is No Patent TrollRecall the post on IPBiz Patentees don't do well in… [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 6:49 am
Don't leave money on the tabe, as the saying goes. [read post]
