Search for: "Lee v. Dodge" Results 1 - 20 of 42
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 May 2020, 1:09 am by Schachtman
In my last post,[1] I praised Lee Mickus’s recent policy paper on amending Rule 702 for its persuasive force on the need for an amendment, as well as a source for helping lawyers anticipate common judicial dodges to a faithful application of the rule.[2] There are multiple dodges used by judicial dodgers, and it behooves litigants to recognize and anticipate them. [read post]
19 Sep 2014, 3:42 am by PaulKostro
A-4722-12T3, September 18, 2014: The CFA “provides relief to consumers from `fraudulent practices in the market place.'” Lee v. [read post]
14 Jun 2010, 5:01 pm by Colin O'Keefe
Today, Terry Lenamon continues his analysis on the case of Ronnie Lee Gardner, who may be executed by firing squad on Friday.  [read post]
13 May 2020, 2:03 am by Schachtman
Explaining the denial of a Rule 702 motion in terms of the availability of cross-examination is just one among several dodges that judges use to avoid fully engaging with Rule 702’s requirements.[1] Another dodge involves shifting the burden of proof on admissibility from the proponent of the challenged expert witness to the challenger. [read post]
26 Sep 2016, 4:43 am by Edith Roberts
In The Intercept, Lee Fang takes issue with Justice Anthony Kennedy’s recent refusal to respond to Fang’s request for a comment on Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 4:05 am by Edith Roberts
In an ACS issue brief, Joel Dodge argues that June Medical Services v. [read post]
12 Jul 2019, 12:11 pm by PaulKostro
Warnock Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 556 (2009) (citing Cox, 138 N.J. at 17). [read post]
30 May 2017, 3:35 am by Edith Roberts
Supreme Court,” after “dodging seven prior execution dates. [read post]
13 Apr 2018, 4:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The elements of an underlying fraud are (1) material representations that were false, (2) the actor knew the representations were false and made them with the intent to induce reliance by the plaintiff, (3) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the actor’s misrepresentations, and (4) the plaintiff was injured as a result of the misrepresentations (see Lee Dodge, Inc. v Sovereign Bank, N.A. [read post]