Back to Network
3
Shared Docs
3
Same-Page
3 / 3
Mentions
Document Mentions (3 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have been req
y, rescission of an agreement is a remedy reserved to the parties to that agreement or those in contractual privity with them. See, e.g., 77tompkins v. Lir Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that "the first requirement of a suit for rescission under Florida law" is "that the parties t
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have been req
y, rescission of an agreement is a remedy reserved to the parties to that agreement or those in contractual privity with them. See, e.g., 77tompkins v. Lir Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that "the first requirement of a suit for rescission under Florida law" is "that the parties t
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have been req
y, rescission of an agreement is a remedy reserved to the parties to that agreement or those in contractual privity with them. See, e.g., 77tompkins v. Lir Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that "the first requirement of a suit for rescission under Florida law" is "that the parties t
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (158)
Entities connected to both Craig v. People and v. Lir Joe Records
WA
Walker
PERSON16 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON16 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
Kenneth Marra
PERSON16 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
JD
Jane Doe
PERSON16 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
GA
Garcia
PERSON15 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
Marc Rich
PERSON15 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
United States
LOCATION14 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON14 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
RU
Rubin
PERSON14 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
Bradley Edwards
PERSON14 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
the Southern District
LOCATION13 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
Paul Cassell
PERSON12 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
MF
Maria Farmer
PERSON12 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
George W. Bush
PERSON11 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
S.J. Quinney College of Law
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
FISTOS & LEHRMAN
ORGANIZATION11 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
West Palm Beach
LOCATION7 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
Fifth Circuit
ORGANIZATION7 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.
the University of Utah
ORGANIZATION7 w/ Craig·2 w/ v.
USAO-SDFL
ORGANIZATION6 w/ Craig·3 w/ v.