Search for: "In re Riley B." Results 1 - 20 of 107
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Mar 2022, 12:05 pm
(termination of parental rights; denial of motion to revoke commitment; ineffective assistance) In re Riley B.?? [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 9:54 am by Eric Goldman
Police officers generally appreciate when they’re playing with the house’s money, and Riley only asks for the return of some of these chips. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 5:33 am by John Jascob
Still, the government said it is ready to go to trial in Johnson’s case, or to have the court let him amend the allocation and re-plead. [read post]
2 Apr 2014, 9:52 pm by Andrew Trask
Riley plots out how one might bring a class action on behalf of very tall people (defined, via statistical analysis, as anyone taller than six foot three) under Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 7:29 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley As we have noted in multiple posts (here and here) the plaintiffs' class action bar has been increasingly focused on re-booting their class action stratagems in the wake of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Sep 2013, 6:54 pm by FHH Law
You can get yourself a pair for the asking if you (a) can convince her that you’re a Friend of the Blog (FoB) and (b) are willing to wear them proudly in public, and maybe even (c) join the throngs who have already sent us spec-centric selfies. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 9:36 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley As we have noted in multiple posts (here, here and here), the plaintiffs' class action bar has been increasingly focused on re-booting their class action stratagems in the wake of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 12:16 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Riley In In Re Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, Case No. 12-CV-10064, 2015 WL 605203 (N.D. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 6:55 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer Riley The plaintiffs' class action bar continues in its search for "re-booting theories" to workaround Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 5:00 am by Cyrus Farivar
The defense attorney, Nathan Feneis, argued that the search of his client’s phone was illegal under the Supreme Court decision Riley v. [read post]