Search for: "Newsome v. Williams" Results 1 - 20 of 63
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Jan 2023, 5:45 pm by Eugene Volokh
Newsom, decided by Judge William Shubb) reaches a result  different from that reached four weeks ago in McDonald v. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 1:42 pm
Newsome, and $1,250,000.00 against the Assistant Principal, William Robert Travis Burns; plus $1,100,000.00 in pre-judgment interest on each of those principal amounts. [read post]
12 Oct 2023, 4:32 am by John R. Byrne
In the majority were Judges Newsom, Brasher, Luck, William Pryor (all nominated by Republicans) and Judges Wilson, Jordan, Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, and Abudu (all nominated by Democrats). [read post]
13 May 2022, 2:19 pm by Eugene Volokh
From Justice William Crain's opinion today (joined by Justices Scott Crichton, James Genovese, Jay McCallum, and Jefferson Hughes III) in State v. [read post]
28 May 2010, 8:09 am by Ted Frank
Add the plaintiff-friendly Exxon Shipping v. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 7:30 am
On October 4, 2010, post-trial motions were heard in the brain injury suit of Gagnon v. [read post]
2 Oct 2020, 4:56 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and Kevin Newsom of the U.S. [read post]
27 Oct 2010, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Newsom "The Revitalization of a Valuable Cause of Action for Competitors: Clayworth v. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 9:42 am by Tom Smith
District Judge William Shubb granted a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Hoeg, et al. v. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 2:27 pm
City and County of San Francisco, CGC-09-486928, also names as individual defendants Mayor Gavin Newsom, Police Chief Heather Fong, and Juvenile Probation Chief William Sifferman. [read post]
27 Jul 2008, 3:27 pm
Williams, we posted that the writing was clearly on the wall to the effect that punitive damages had "peaked out" in American law.That conclusion was strongly supported in the US Supreme Court's recent decision in the Exxon Valdez punitive damages case, Exxon Shipping Co. v. [read post]