Search for: "Doe Defendants I through X" Results 1 - 20 of 739
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Nov 2007, 6:15 pm
I see London, I see France, I see a failed attempt to appeal a Los Angeles trial court decision on X-ray machines at state prisons! [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
Just because the court has authority to do X does not justify X. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 10:51 am
This is why it is important for a defendant to have an attorney by his or her side who can look into the facts of the case and identify when certain testimony does not add up. [read post]
8 Sep 2017, 4:00 am by Mike McCandlish
Does the fact that relevant information is “arguably within [the defendant’s] sole possession” affect the plaintiff’s burden in pleading a claim for patent infringement? [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 10:50 pm
I have now got hold of the judgment in X v Hounslow [2008] All ER 337 (May) (thanks to assorted helpful sprites). [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 8:00 am by Abbe Gluck
What's more, applying the exclusio unius presumption  (that when Congress specifies X we can assume that it meant not to specify X elsewhere) to a statute as long and complicated as the ACA -- and one that did not go through the usual linguistic "clean up" process in Conference (as I wrote here) does a disservice to textualism and all those who have defended it over the years--turning it into a wooden unreasonable… [read post]
13 Oct 2019, 1:00 am by Law Offices of David M. Benenfeld P.A
If the equipment you are using on the job was manufactured by company X and was the cause of your injuries, you can get workers’ comp while suing company X for any malfunctioning equipment. [read post]
9 Sep 2016, 2:49 pm by Kent Scheidegger
  He submits what he believes is conclusive evidence negating X, so he does not expend the resources to negate Y. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 2:39 pm by David Cheifetz
When the Supreme Court of Canada says “X” in 2007, and repeats “X” in 2011 adding explicitly that “X does not mean Y but means Z”, it is reasonable to assume (is it not?) [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 9:11 pm by Sherry F. Colb
Then, when they lose that battle, they run to the jury to say “I have something I need to tell you,” hoping to capitalize on the tendency to trust people who are transparent about their checkered histories.Consider why we trust the defendant who says “I was convicted of crime X in year Y. [read post]
27 Feb 2020, 1:00 pm by Evan Minton
  Today, I’m speaking truth to power in Congress and defending my right and my community’s right to access healthcare. [read post]
27 Dec 2020, 7:45 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
One which purported to sell x-ray glasses, which would allow the user to see through things. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 1:33 pm
  I am minding my own business with what I think is a $50 million painting by Artist X hanging on my wall. [read post]
24 May 2013, 6:00 am by Kenneth J. Vanko
(For my prior post discussing Nosal in the District Court, click here.)That is: X uses Y's password to log in to a protected database, when X can't otherwise gain access through credentials assigned to him.As the Nosal jury found, this conduct violated the CFAA because the individual is gaining access to a protected computer without authorization. [read post]
6 May 2014, 12:21 pm by Andrew Delaney
And what if the driver says “I crashed 5 hours ago, and I drank a fifth of vodka after I crashed”? [read post]