Search for: "Cert. of Question of Law From US Dist. Ct." Results 21 - 40 of 55
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2018, 5:02 pm by Wolfgang Demino
Plaintiff earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications and Media from Fordham University in 2000 and a Juris Doctorate from New York Law School in February of 2004. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 4:00 am
Supreme Court>> Public Citizen's Sup Ct Watch list archive here>> SCOTUSblog's Petitions to Watch archives here>> Ross Runkel's US Sup Ct Employment Law Cases - Pending & decided herePetition for Cert Granted: span>DecidedCrawford v. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
In denying plaintiff's motion, the court determined that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Miller's "mistake and the shooting that resulted" did not violate any applicable standard of care and hinged on a credibility determination best left for the jury (US Dist Ct, ND NY, 3:13 CV 107, Sept. 27, 2017, McAvoy, Sr. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
In denying plaintiff's motion, the court determined that a reasonable jury could have concluded that Miller's "mistake and the shooting that resulted" did not violate any applicable standard of care and hinged on a credibility determination best left for the jury (US Dist Ct, ND NY, 3:13 CV 107, Sept. 27, 2017, McAvoy, Sr. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 8:28 am by Paul Bland
    If many members of the corporate defense bar get the Court to use this case to grant their fondest wishes for immunity from consumer protection and civil rights laws granted, however, then this case could have the kind of impact on class actions that an asteroid landing in Mexico millions of years ago had on dinosaurs. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 10:57 pm by Mahmoud Khatib
Subjective and Objective Standards for Determining the Parties’ Intentions Depending on the jurisdiction, courts use either an objective or subjective standard to determine the parties’ intentions.[30] In jurisdictions that use a subjective standard, the parties’ intentions are considered a question of fact, not a question of law, and courts thus defer the question to the jury to determine.[31] In jurisdictions that use… [read post]