Search for: "Hartman by Hartman v. Hartman" Results 201 - 220 of 271
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 May 2015, 2:15 pm by Maureen Johnston
§ 1983 is an “expressly authorized” statutory exception to the Anti-Injunction Act; and (2) whether, as this Court left unresolved in Hartman v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
  One of the most important associations in my life has been with the Shalom Hartman Institute of Jewish Philosophy in Jerusalem, with which I had an incredibly rich thirty-year relationship. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 1:15 pm by Rory Little
Unsurprisingly (see my post-argument analysis), that pattern held true in today’s decision in Manuel v. [read post]
IN A DIFFERENT VOICEJustice O'Neill's recent announcement that she will not seek re-election in 2010 adds something of a parting-shot quality to her vigorous dissent to the Court's disrespect for precedent and for trial courts' traditional discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a new trial in the interest of justice. [read post]
4 Feb 2015, 9:49 am by Shea Denning
The appellate court rejected that argument as precluded by earlier case law, citing Hartman v. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 3:59 am by Maxwell Kennerly
Boney Services, Inc., 127 F.3d 821, 827 (9th Cir. 1997) (“a finding that the losing party has acted in bad faith may provide evidence that the case is exceptional” but “other exceptional circumstances may [also] warrant a fee award”); Hartman v. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 1:26 pm by Naomi Jane Gray
Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming award of $2,308,000 in attorneys’ fees to defendant where plaintiff asserted groundless false advertising claim); Hartman v. [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 1:26 pm by Naomi Jane Gray
Franklin Mint Co., 292 F.3d 1139, 1156 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming award of $2,308,000 in attorneys’ fees to defendant where plaintiff asserted groundless false advertising claim); Hartman v. [read post]
5 Dec 2011, 7:14 am by Lyle Denniston
The case will require the Court to sort out the impact on the case of its own ruling in 2006, in the case of Hartman v. [read post]