Back to Network
3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
3 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (3 shared documents)
3 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004). In its motion for reconsideration, North Shore made two arguments. First,
2d 829, 831 (1999). Once these distinctions have been made, the trial judge has broad equitable powers in disposing of marital property. Fuentes, 38 V.I. at 35, 1997 WL 889532, at *5. [5] [HN4]Although not specifically defined, marital property ['23] has been construed to encompass any property whic
rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004). In its motion for reconsideration, North Shore made two arguments. First, it argued that the
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
the Rules of the District Cowl, the Ocderal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence." ° Bostic v. AT&T ophe V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). 9 Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 1° F & M Distributors, In
trict Cowl, the Ocderal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence." ° Bostic v. AT&T ophe V.I., 312 F. Supp. 2d 731, 733 (D.V.I. 2004). 9 Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985). 1° F & M Distributors, Inc. v. American Har
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
initial decision, for rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004). In its motion for reconsideration, North Shore made two arguments. First,
rearguing matters already addressed by the court, or for raising arguments that could have been raised before but were not." Bostic v. AT&T of the V.I., 312 F.Supp. 2d 731, 733, 45 V.I. 553 (D.V.I. 2004). In its motion for reconsideration, North Shore made two arguments. First, it argued that the
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (16)
Entities connected to both Bostic and V.I.
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON6 w/ Bostic·53 w/ V.I.
St. John
LOCATION2 w/ Bostic·11 w/ V.I.
Prince Charles
PERSON3 w/ Bostic·7 w/ V.I.
FA
Fancelli
PERSON4 w/ Bostic·4 w/ V.I.
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON3 w/ Bostic·4 w/ V.I.
DF
Denise Francois
PERSON4 w/ Bostic·3 w/ V.I.
ZL
Zlotnicki
PERSON4 w/ Bostic·3 w/ V.I.
Harsco Corp.
ORGANIZATION4 w/ Bostic·3 w/ V.I.
St Thomas
LOCATION2 w/ Bostic·4 w/ V.I.
PR
Prosser
PERSON2 w/ Bostic·4 w/ V.I.
Carroll
PERSON2 w/ Bostic·3 w/ V.I.
MOORE DODSON & RUSSELL
ORGANIZATION3 w/ Bostic·2 w/ V.I.
JM
Juan Pablo Molyneux
PERSON3 w/ Bostic·2 w/ V.I.
TM
Treston E. Moore
PERSON3 w/ Bostic·2 w/ V.I.
Division of St. Thomas
ORGANIZATION2 w/ Bostic·3 w/ V.I.
North Shore Mot
LOCATION2 w/ Bostic·2 w/ V.I.