Search for: "US v. Dowell" Results 1 - 20 of 40
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Feb 2012, 3:00 am by Doug Austin
Dowell, the plaintiff and defendant could not agree on search terms to be used for discovery on defendant’s forensically imaged computers. [read post]
26 May 2008, 3:43 am
  Last Friday, five of the Justices ruled, in Providence Health Care Center v. [read post]
13 May 2012, 4:39 pm by Eugene Volokh
” — this might qualify as either incitement of imminent criminal conduct, or as constitutionally unprotected solicitation of crime (see United States v. [read post]
17 Feb 2012, 10:52 am by Steven Boutwell
Dowell, 2012 WL 10496, a dispute between the parties as to what search terms were to be used by the defendants to search for and respond to discovery made its way to the judge. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 7:42 am
This week on the legal-affairs podcast Lawyer2Lawyer, we discuss the recent Supreme Court decision Sprint/United Management Co. v. [read post]
5 Dec 2009, 4:39 pm
The agreement here was too broad, but there does not seem to be much room left for clauses that prohibit solicitation merely because an employee is exposed to "confidential" information and might use them some day.The case is Dowell v. [read post]
10 Feb 2008, 2:15 am
City of Los Angeles, 624 F.2d 935, 937-38 (9th Cir. 1980); DuFour-Dowell v. [read post]
27 Jun 2019, 11:53 am by Joel R. Brandes
As for the manner of administration, Father initially used sections of PVC pipe and wooden dowels and later began using color-coded plastic rulers (whose colors correspond with different “sins”). [read post]
20 Mar 2011, 9:55 am by Aidan O'Neill QC, Matrix
That is a necessary consequence of the observations of Lord Hope of Craighead at p 997 (p 963) paragraph 16 of his opinion in McDonald v HM Advocate [2008] UKPC 46 It follows from that that, in any appeal for which leave might be granted by us, the appellant would seek to canvass exactly the same issues as were canvassed in the course of his appeal under s 106 of the 1995 Act, but this time before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. [read post]