Search for: "United States v. FEDERAL COMPANY" Results 1 - 20 of 12,361
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jun 2024, 10:37 am by Adam Klasfeld
Over the course of two days of oral arguments, former President Donald Trump’s attorneys aimed at the 150-year-old foundations of the practice of appointing special counsels in the United States. [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 10:26 am by Dennis Crouch
” In its petition for certiorari, DG argued that the Fourth Circuit’s decision conflicts with United States v. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 4:04 pm by Josh Blackman
United States, each of the separate opinions contended that the 16th Amendment (ratified in 1913) "overruled" Pollock v. [read post]
20 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
In the United States, we’ve long had transactions in mutual funds generally settle in one day. [read post]
19 Jun 2024, 8:22 am by Eric Goldman
“Section 230 establishes a liability rule for litigation in U.S. courts rather than a conduct rule that applies to actions taken outside the United States…This case is being litigated in the United States, so applying Section 230 as a defense to liability involves a domestic application of Section 230, even if the actions that might otherwise create liability occurred elsewhere. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 1:09 pm by Unknown
BNSF Railway Company (Trespass Restitution) Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. [read post]
18 Jun 2024, 7:50 am by Evan George
” They also want a special master appointed to oversee the state’s compliance with these deadlines.   The state’s response   In the motion to dismiss, attorneys for the state argued that responsibility for the planet-warming emissions at issue lies with fossil fuel companies, not the Department of Transportation. [read post]
17 Jun 2024, 10:03 am by David Oscar Markus
United States: In order to get work, the defendant used as a front a company that qualified as a “disadvantaged business enterprise,” though the company performed no actual work. [read post]
16 Jun 2024, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
Emphasising that the company processes “highly sensitive personal information, including genetic information which does not change over time,” the regulator confirmed that its investigation will examine the scope of information that was exposed by the breach and its potential harms; whether the company had adequate safeguards and whether 23andMe adequately notified the ICO, CPO and affected data subjects of the breach. [read post]