Cluster 202691

The Agreement also defines “the company” as “including its subsidiaries.” Id. (“all disputes between you and the company (including its subsidiaries, owners, officers, directors, employees, agents or successors) will be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration, and not by court or other action.”).

The Agreement also defines “the company” as “including its subsidiaries.” Id. (“all disputes between you and the company (including its subsidiaries, owners, officers, directors, employees, agents or successors) will be resolved exclusively by final and binding arbitration, and not by court or other action.”).

Rullan, 485 F.3d 1 5 0 , 156 (1st Cir. 2007) (“[S]ubstandard care, malpractice, negligence, inadvertent failure to provide care, and disagreement as to the appropriate course of treatment are all insufficient to prove a constitutional violation.”); Watson v .

Rullan, 485 F.3d 1 5 0 , 156 (1st Cir. 2007) (“[S]ubstandard care, malpractice, negligence, inadvertent failure to provide care, and disagreement as to the appropriate course of treatment are all insufficient to prove a constitutional violation.”); Watson v .

Rullan, 485 F.3d 1 5 0 , 156 (1st Cir. 2007) (“[S]ubstandard care, malpractice, negligence, inadvertent failure to provide care, and disagreement as to the appropriate course of treatment are all insufficient to prove a 12 constitutional violation.”); Watson v .

A mere “lack of memory . . . is hardly affirmative evidence of non-receipt,” Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007), particularly where Defendants have provided evidence (albeit limited) that their online candidate program is secured by a password, [ECF No. 8-1 ¶ 4], as well as metadata indicating that the Agreement was executed moments before and after other onboarding documents, see [Reply at 16].

Air-Con, Inc., 21 F.4th at 175 ; see also id. at n. 8 (“The non-moving party cannot avoid compelled arbitration by generally denying the facts upon which the right to arbitration rests; the party must identify specific evidence in the record demonstrating a material factual dispute for trial.” (quotation omitted)); Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (a purported lack of memory about a fact is not affirmative evidence that the event did not occur and, theref…

Air-Con, Inc., 21 F.4th at 175 ; see also id. at n. 8 (“The non-moving party cannot avoid compelled arbitration by generally denying the facts upon which the right to arbitration rests; the party must identify specific evidence in the record demonstrating a material factual dispute for trial.” (quotation omitted)); Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (a purported lack of memory about a fact is not affirmative evidence that the event did not occur and, theref…

In support of Ground 2, Petitioner asserts [h]abeas relief for a due process violation concerning an absent or defective instruction is available when the absence of an instruction, or a defective instruction, infects the entire trial with unfairness." Albrecht v. Horn, 485 F.3d 1 3, 129 (3d Cir. 2007) (citing Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U.S. 141, 147 , 94 S. Ct. 39 , 38 L.

Background The origins of this litigation are well documented, see Haag v. United States (Haag I), 485 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.2007), so we sketch here only the essential facts.

In Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 2 (1st Cir.2007), the United States initially filed a tax collection action against the Haags in district court.

Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.2007).

Consequently, the Haags “were not entitled to the hearing at all.” Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2007) (“Haag I”).

EVID. 803(6); Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (holding computerized records of letters giving notice of tax liens admissible).

See Fed.R.Evid. 803(6); Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.2007) (holding computerized records of letters giving notice of tax liens admissible).

See Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (an affidavit describing an office’s usual practice was “enough to infer what actually happened” where the affiant did not have personal knowledge).

See 485 F.3d 1 the Officers’ motives.

See Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1 (1st Cir.2007) (“Haag I”).

See Clements, 485 F.3d at 162 (a federal claim is fairly presented to the state court when a habeas petitioner “cit[es] a provision of the federal constitution” or “present[s] a federal constitutional claim in a manner that fairly alerts the state court to the federal nature of the claim”).

See id. 3 .

See Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir.2007) (a “lack of memory” is “hardly affirmative evidence of non-receipt that might bar summary judgment”).

See also Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (a purported lack of memory about a fact is not affirmative evidence that the event did not occur and, therefore, it is insufficient to render that fact “genuinely disputed”).

See also Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007) (a purported lack of memory about a fact is not affirmative evidence that the event did not occur and, therefore, it is insufficient to render that fact “genuinely disputed”).