Search for: "WEAVER v. DOE"
Results 81 - 100
of 309
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Aug 2019, 7:52 am
The Second Circuit held, in accord with several other circuits, that the presumption that an unenhanced lodestar is sufficient does not apply to the award of fees case from a common fund created after a settlement (Isaacson/Weaver Family Trust v. [read post]
21 Aug 2009, 11:38 am
Justice Weaver disagreed, responding in a concurrence that a change in composition does not preclude a majority of the Court from granting reconsideration and stating that “[i]f, for instance, four justices on the newly composed Court conclude that the challenged decision was erroneous, those justices can vote to grant reconsideration. [read post]
27 Jul 2006, 5:25 am
I firmly believe that the piecemeal fashion in which the Paternity Act has been amended does nothing more than confuse the issues. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 7:41 am
Co. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 4:44 am
United States v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 6:00 am
Petitioner stated that, going back to Weaver v. [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 2:53 am
This is the rationale used in U.S. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 12:18 pm
On July 13, 2010, the Michigan Supreme Court published Justice Corrigan’s majority opinion in Holman v. [read post]
2 Dec 2017, 4:53 am
Nicholas Weaver emphasized the seriousness of the danger from autonomous weapons systems such as “slaughterbots. [read post]
31 Aug 2016, 8:16 am
From the complaint in Allen v. [read post]
21 Sep 2010, 7:05 am
In Steenburgh v. [read post]
24 Feb 2018, 5:57 am
Robert Chesney dissected a factual dispute in Doe v. [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 1:04 pm
Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796, 797-98 (Tex. 2008). [read post]
22 Jun 2019, 9:20 am
Circuit in Qasim v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 5:58 am
United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 7:50 am
West Coast Productions v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 12:10 pm
Justice Weaver, joined by Justice Hathaway, issued a separate dissenting opinion agreeing with Justice Young’s criticism that the new rule will have unforseen consequences, and stating that “the majority’s unrestrained decision today is a huge mistake. [read post]
8 May 2010, 9:15 am
Emmendorfer, 311 Mich. 274, 279 (1945) (holding that “[t]he statute of limitations does not control the question of laches in equitable actions”) and Stokes v. [read post]
2 Sep 2014, 6:00 am
Being a jerk is not a disability and, at least according to the Ninth Circuit in Weaving v. [read post]
