Search for: "PARKER v. NO DEFENDANT LISTED" Results 121 - 140 of 197
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
31 May 2012, 12:43 pm by John Elwood
Dukes involving the standard for class-action certification, and a fourth time in Parker v. [read post]
29 May 2012, 9:40 am by Matthew Bush
Washington, that prejudice requires a showing that, but for counsel’s error, there is a reasonable probability of a different outcome.Certiorari stage documents:Opinion below (6th Cir.)Petition for certiorari Brief in oppositionReply of petitioner Parker v. [read post]
17 May 2012, 7:55 am by John Elwood
  Second, Parker, Warden v. [read post]
11 Mar 2012, 10:52 am by Charles Bieneman
Judge Davis distinguished the ’443 patent claims from the claim in Parker v. [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 1:30 am by INFORRM
David Allen Green, who is acting for Chambers, listed some of the previous coverage here. [read post]
29 Jan 2012, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
David Harris, who tweeted anonymously as @geeklawyer, was criticised by the BSB for his tweets, but more significantly for not disclosing his role in the website – Newzbin – he was defending. [read post]
29 Aug 2011, 5:08 pm by INFORRM
Next Week in the Courts We are not aware of any media law cases listed for this week. [read post]
9 Aug 2011, 4:16 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In Bernard v Proskauer Rose, LLP ; 2011 NY Slip Op 06184 ; Decided on August 4, 2011 ; Appellate Division, First Department  we see a situation in which plaintiff sues his attorneys, who defend by arguing that the plaintiff brought it all upon himself. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 12:39 am by Graeme Hall
The full list of links, updated each day, can be found here. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 7:15 pm by Michelle Lindo McCluer
  One such meaning, Kazin argued, is accompanying the force, citing Reid v. [read post]
4 Mar 2011, 9:11 am by Christa Culver
Note: Goldstein, Howe & Russell represents the petitioner in this case, which is listed without regard to its chance of being granted.Title: Edwards v. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 1:26 pm by Christa Culver
CaldwellDocket: 10-622Issue(s): (1) Whether a binding agreement among multiple states and private companies is immunized from antitrust scrutiny under the state-action immunity doctrine of Parker v. [read post]