Search for: "Doe Defendants I through X"
Results 1 - 20
of 973
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
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]
25 Mar 2024, 11:27 am
He calls out Twitter for its bad choice: This case is about punishing the Defendants for their speech…X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. [read post]
27 Apr 2023, 12:49 pm
Soon after I posted, a reader asked whether introducing those records through an affidavit from a records custodian violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him or her. [read post]
12 May 2009, 7:49 pm
Linda X., M.D., Linda X., M.D., Inc., General Medical Center, a Corporation, and Does 1 through 250, inclusive, Defendants. [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 4:03 pm
Just because the court has authority to do X does not justify X. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 6:37 am
MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC., and X HOLDINGS II, INC., Defendants. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 6:37 am
MUSK, X HOLDINGS I, INC., and X HOLDINGS II, INC., Defendants. [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]
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]
13 Mar 2012, 1:02 pm
My whole life I was made to believe I was sick when I wasn’t…. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 1:12 pm
My whole life I was made to believe I was sick when I wasn’t…. [read post]
10 Dec 2021, 10:11 am
App’x 723 (9th Cir. 2021); La’Tiejira v. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 8:00 am
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]
26 May 2023, 1:15 pm
Some of my best Virginia criminal plea negotiations come when I least expect them, sometimes after I merely say to the prosecutor in passing, something along the lines of: "Since you are not going to agree to a plea of X, we will simply go to trial", and sometimes the prosecutor agrees to X. [read post]
13 Oct 2019, 1:00 am
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
He submits what he believes is conclusive evidence negating X, so he does not expend the resources to negate Y. [read post]
2 Jul 2023, 11:54 pm
For example, if a defendant is on benefit and does not own anything valuable, the chances of getting paid are low. [read post]
31 Oct 2015, 2:39 pm
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]
6 Jan 2022, 12:21 am
Retromark Volume X: the last six months in trade marksby Darren Meale Retromark turns ten volumes, making it about four and a half human years old. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 9:11 pm
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]
