Search for: "Maria S. v. Doe" Results 101 - 120 of 570
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Mar 2011, 5:47 pm
The point was moot in this case because the court that tried the first suit (the Delhi High Court) would have had jurisdiction to entertain a s. 34 application, if maintainable (Fountain Head Developers v Maria Arcangela Sequeira, ¶ 14). [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 2:24 pm by Benjamin Pollard
Bruen, and the tech privacy implications of Dobbs v. [read post]
4 Sep 2008, 9:51 pm
The obvious fact that the entire population does not daily parade through the mall, much less reside there on a permanent basis - i.e., that the incidence of crime would have to be measured against the number of people at risk, rather than the city's population as a whole was merely acknowledged in passing.Trammell Crow Central Texas, Ltd v. [read post]
18 May 2017, 10:28 am by Kent Scheidegger
While defendant's original appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. [read post]
21 Feb 2023, 8:57 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
This case arises from the defendants' public comments about Smartmatic and their claims that this company's software caused former President Trump to lose the 2020 election.The case is Smartmatic USA v. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 10:47 am by Don Cruse
” A “purely defensive request” for attorney’s fees does not waive the State’s sovereign immunity under Reata Texas Department of Criminal Justice v. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 6:48 am
The prima facie case requirement does not necessitate that an information allege facts that would prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. [read post]