Search for: "M S International, Inc. v. United States" Results 1 - 20 of 1,047
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2024, 2:48 pm by Larry
The basis for this decision is explained in Cyber Power Systems (USA) Inc. v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"[A]n arbitrator 'exceed[s] [their] power' under the meaning of the statute where [their] 'award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power' " (id.), or where the arbitrator " 'manifestly disregard[s]' the substantive law applicable to the parties' dispute" (Schiferle v Capital Fence Co., Inc., 155 AD3d 122, 127… [read post]
10 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"[A]n arbitrator 'exceed[s] [their] power' under the meaning of the statute where [their] 'award violates a strong public policy, is irrational or clearly exceeds a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power' " (id.), or where the arbitrator " 'manifestly disregard[s]' the substantive law applicable to the parties' dispute" (Schiferle v Capital Fence Co., Inc., 155 AD3d 122, 127… [read post]
21 Apr 2024, 2:35 pm
App’x 364, 366–67 (9th Cir. 2018) (considering personal contacts between the appellant and state of Washington to find personal jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award); S & Davis Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Apr 2024, 9:05 pm by renholding
Any other questions are treated as irritating interruptions that are “external” to the internal operations of the firm. [read post]
3 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Indeed, as one federal court recently stated, “the ‘crypto’ nomenclature may be of recent vintage, but the challenged transactions fall comfortably within the framework that courts have used to identify securities for nearly eighty years. [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 9:53 am by Larry
"This comes up in relation to the Court of International Trade decision in Trijicon, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2024, 4:34 pm by Larry
 However, the legal impact of those un-numbered categories did merit discussion from the Court of International Trade in Spirit Aerosystems, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2024, 10:13 am by Larry
United States, a (relatively) recent decision from the Court of International Trade. [read post]