In both their interviews and their applications, Appellees refused to answer some questions about their backgrounds, claiming that the questions violated the district court's sealing order. The INS determined that a second interview was necessary and scheduled it for May 6, 1999. Appellees' lawyer ...
to go to part 5 (proximate cause) if they found there was no consent in response to part 1. A clerk then said that the instruction to go to part 5 was a "typo." The court furnished the jury with a clean verdict sheet, which instructed the jurors to answer part 2 of Question 3 ...
Answer to: In order to use the defense of assumption of risk, the defendant has to prove that the plaintiff ___. By signing up, you'll get...
This Article seeks to answer a question that may arise when a purchaser of real property comes under two types of legal attacks for acquiring a contaminated piece of land; a lawsuit initiated by government agencies under the Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and...
Answer to Second Am. Compl. at 23. Before the Court is Chipotle's Motion for a Protective Order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to prohibit plaintiffs from discovery of Chipotle's attorney-client communications regarding the decision to classify apprentices as "executives" a...
Always was willing to answer my questions and never gave me the run around. D B. 4 years ago From the beginning, they did what they said they were going to do to get the desired results. Being from out of state, this is exactly what we were looking for. Working with them required...
17 MS. KAVANAUGH: Object to the form of the 18 question. Go ahead. You can answer. 19 MR. Sorry. What's wrong with the 20 form? 21 MS. KAVANAUGH: Own the note. 22 MR. You can answer. 23 A. Okay. Yeah, it's my understanding that the -- 24 I guess approximately a month ...
Therefore, the first question that you must answer is whether the defendant's vehicle was defective. The plaintiffs claim that this vehicle was defective because of its propensity to rollover and lack of adequate warnings to the consumer of this propensity. The defendant denies this and contends...
January that his prior counsel had still failed to file an answer to the complaint.3In support of his statement that Aakash had not hindered or delayed Anilina, Mr. Shah tendered copies of telexes Aakash had sent to Anilina in January and February which looked for a resolution of the ...
This is a potentially difficult choice-of-law question, but we do not need to answer it in order to decide ripeness. First, the central issue is enforceability in California. Therefore, if the suit is unripe under California law, we should not decide the case, irrespective of whether it ...