Search for: "Mitchell v. Rogers" Results 1 - 20 of 108
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Dec 2007, 4:36 pm
In a recent exchange on NY Times v. [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 2:10 pm
My colleague Sandy Levinson asked me whether Roger Clemens got a raw deal. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 11:45 pm
The Mitchell Report on doping in baseball contained testimony from Clemens’ former [...] [read post]
17 May 2012, 5:03 pm by Michael McCann
Moreover, much like the Mitchell Report has been criticized for relying on disreputable persons, expect similar critiques if the same proves true of the NFL's Bounty Report.* * *Vilma v. [read post]
7 Jan 2008, 7:50 am
Clemens files defamation lawsuit against ex-trainer McNamee [AP] Clemens v. [read post]
17 May 2012, 9:30 pm by Howard Wasserman
In Clemens, Clemens sued McNamee in Texas over statements McNamee made to the Mitchell Commission and Sports Illustrated in New York about conduct occurring in New York and Toronto. [read post]
12 Jul 2017, 6:30 am by Mitra Sharafi
Here’s another volume in Hart’s Landmark Cases series that is now out in paperback: Landmark Cases in the Law of Contract, edited by Charles Mitchell and Paul Mitchell, both of University College London. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 9:19 pm
A few thoughts after a quick read: 1) The personal jurisdiction analysis as to the Mitchell Commission and Sports Illustrated claims takes a very narrow approach to Calder v. [read post]
18 Aug 2010, 6:02 am by Howard Wasserman
Second, the panel divided over the proper understanding of the "effects test" of Calder v. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 12:14 pm
Lord Scott agreed with Lord Roger and Lord Brown on the common law liability.The common law did not, in general, impose liability for omissions. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 8:43 am
Cromartie (2001) -- race-based redistricting Rogers v. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 7:30 pm by Howard Wasserman
The visits to Texas were part of the overall relationship that put McNamee in position to give Clemens steroids, to be a source on steroid use for the Mitchell Commission and Sports Illustrated, and to make the defamatory statements.Second, the panel divided over the proper understanding of the "effects test" of Calder v. [read post]