Search for: "Matter of Part 60 Put-Back Litig."
Results 1 - 20
of 427
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
8 Jun 2021, 3:58 am
Way back in 2006, we wrote a post titled, How NOT to Handle Your China Legal Matters. [read post]
31 Jul 2020, 4:00 am
This guidance included possible intervention by judges on matters of evidence as well as process and procedure. [read post]
27 Oct 2020, 7:54 am
This post is the first in a five-part series on litigation about mail voting during the 2020 general election. [read post]
18 Jan 2023, 11:41 am
We are back with the Antitrust Matters podcast, and we’re going to do something a little different today. [read post]
12 Feb 2013, 6:41 am
Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 60 S. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 9:35 am
(See the new guidance on ex parte communications at Rule 5.1-2C of the FLSC’s Model Code of Conduct.) [read post]
9 Mar 2013, 7:33 pm
While some may be willing to dig through the site to find the posts, over the weekend I've put them together in date order, especially since the 60 Minutes segment airs Sunday.I'm not a class action lawyer. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 8:12 am
David Golden: Welcome back, everyone. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 5:00 am
While the ATCA makes a number of statutory changes towards this end, only part of Section 4 has a bearing on U.S. foreign assistance policies. [read post]
22 Dec 2022, 6:52 am
We are back for another episode of Antitrust Matters, and we have an interesting topic and an interesting guest today, our first journalist. [read post]
2 Apr 2021, 6:00 am
P. 60(c)(1), and may not be used “simply to relitigate matters settled by the original judgment. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 5:52 am
They might put five lawyers on a matter on which we would put two lawyers, or three lawyers on a matter on which we would put one lawyer and a paralegal or an international business specialist. [read post]
23 Jun 2007, 9:44 am
WSP Group Plc and Others [2007] EWHC 55 (TCC):‘In trying this question, I believe that I state the rule of the court correctly, when I say, that where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation… [read post]
19 Sep 2013, 9:53 am
Pfizer, Inc., 712 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2013) – all of which also travel under the heading, In re Neurontin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 6:22 am
Abraham Drassinower’s work on this is relevant, and suggests that the answer is that the incentive justification doesn’t do much work on definitions of the protected matter as a whole, even if it might affect what parts of the work are free for others to copy. [read post]
10 Nov 2013, 1:13 am
Rules such as "loser-pays" in patent litigation are also helpful in this regard. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 12:30 pm
He peppers Weinreb with questions, ones seemingly less deferential and more searching than those he put to Mizner moments earlier. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 9:00 pm
So the Rules also allow you not to disclose the information, that is, not to disclose findings, opinions and conclusions, where the findings, opinions and conclusions of the expert were formed in preparation of contemplated litigation or pending litigation and…and that's the key part…and you undertake not to call the witness at trial. [read post]
15 Mar 2017, 4:28 pm
I will analyze the new executive order in three parts. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 8:28 am
There is an Initial Order, where the claimant pays the second part of the filing fee, this time $60. [read post]
