Search for: "Green v. Assurant, Inc. et al"
Results 1 - 20
of 40
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Apr 2024, 4:08 pm
Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-594 (1993). [2] Id. at 594 (internal citations omitted) (emphasis added). [3] Id [read post]
19 Nov 2023, 2:31 pm
Chubin et al. at 10, Daubert v. [read post]
24 Aug 2022, 9:01 pm
(“BNY Mellon”), relating to its ESG assurances in violation of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and the Investment Company Act of 1940. [read post]
19 Jul 2022, 2:59 pm
See, e.g., Sarafin v. [read post]
17 Jul 2020, 3:00 am
§ 791a et seq.) preempt application of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. [read post]
23 Jun 2020, 3:00 am
BP PLC et al., further separating climate litigation cases from the federal court system by holding that the nuisance claims in climate litigation shall be heard in state courts and not federal. [read post]
23 Sep 2018, 9:50 am
SUPREME COURT IN HIAWATHA HENRY ET AL VS. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 6:09 pm
On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas.JUSTICE JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the Court, in which CHIEF JUSTICE HECHT, JUSTICE GREEN, JUSTICE GUZMAN, JUSTICE LEHRMANN, JUSTICE BOYD, JUSTICE DEVINE, and JUSTICE BROWN joined. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 2:57 pm
ANZ Securities, Inc. [read post]
1 May 2016, 1:49 pm
§ 1125(a)) Relief for Unfair Competition Under California Business And Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq. [read post]
8 Aug 2015, 9:03 am
On July 23, 2015, the parties in the lawsuit The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al v. [read post]
8 Aug 2015, 4:03 am
On July 23, 2015, the parties in the lawsuit The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al v. [read post]
27 Jun 2015, 2:50 pm
See The Fredericksburg Care Company L.P. v Juanita Perez et al. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 2:38 pm
In one instance, Greenland revisits one of his own cases, without any clear acknowledgment that his views were largely rejected.[6] The State of California had declared, pursuant to Proposition 65 ( the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5, et seq.), that the State “knew” that di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, or “DEHP” caused cancer. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 2:30 pm
In one instance, Greenland revisits one of his own cases, without any clear acknowledgment that his views were largely rejected.[6] The State of California had declared, pursuant to Proposition 65 ( the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health and Safety Code sections 25249.5, et seq.), that the State “knew” that di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, or “DEHP” caused cancer. [read post]
7 Mar 2012, 12:16 pm
A recent home health care fraud case out of the Northern District of Illinois, United States v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 10:18 am
The latest ruling framing the "Dukes effect" is Easterling, et al. v. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 1:29 am
(Spicy IP) ‘Mutually assured destruction’ through litigation – Sergi Transformers v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 12:40 pm
We now have a lawsuit describing this third scenario: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et. al. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 12:40 pm
We now have a lawsuit describing this third scenario: The Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et. al. v. [read post]
