Search for: "MOORE et al v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al" Results 1 - 20 of 27
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jun 2010, 1:31 pm by Seth Borden
  In Air Transport Association of America, Inc. et. al. v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 10:54 am by David Oscar Markus
” Finally, the Court notes that it does not adopt citations in the R&R that do not conform to The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation (Columbia Law Review Ass’n et al. eds., 20th ed. 2015).Yikes.Here’s the R&R and the District Order.Update— both in the comments and in emails/texts, people are criticizing me for posting this public order. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 4:04 am by Hon. Richard G. Kopf
Concepcion, et al., Case No. 1:18CV20875-KMM (S.D. [read post]
1 Apr 2010, 9:16 pm
Zimmerman (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) (Copyrights & Campaigns) District Court C D California: IsoHunt told to pull .torrent files offline, likely to close: Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., et al. v. [read post]
29 May 2008, 5:55 pm
This case concerns a consolidated appeal by Sensations, Inc. et al. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am by Ronald Collins
In December 1833, the American Monthly Review commented on a newly published book by Joseph Story. [read post]
2 Nov 2021, 8:26 pm by David Kopel
Carry outside the home is the norm throughout most of the country, including many large urban areas, such as the District of Columbia, Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, San Juan, Seattle, and Houston. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 4:18 am by Marie Louise
Hise (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) Supreme Court confirms that a download is not a performance: ASCAP v United States (1709 Copyright Blog) (Ars Technica) District Court S D New York: Court nukes another mass defendant file-sharing lawsuit: Digiprotect v Does (Technology & Marketing Law Blog) District Court E D Virginia calls out copyright trolls’ coercive business model, threaten sanctions K-Beech v Does 1–85 (EFF) (Ars Technica)… [read post]
23 May 2010, 3:11 am by INFORRM
Grant et al, 2010 BCSC 682 the claim concerned alleged defamatory statements made by a police officer to the plaintiff’s employer stemming from [read post]