Search for: "Hoffman v. United States"
Results 281 - 300
of 453
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jul 2012, 5:01 am
See, e.g, United States v. [read post]
28 May 2012, 11:38 am
In answering the issues, the Court of Appeal relied upon the (minority) judgment of Lord Hoffman in Cambridge Gas Transportation Corporation v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings [2006] UKPC 26, and Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd [2008] UKHL 21, finding that foreign court proceedings could in fact be recognised in this case under the Model Law. [read post]
26 May 2012, 3:02 pm
Georgia Shelby Bell, University of Minnesota: The Presidency as a Tool for Foreign Policy: An Exploration of the Implications of United States v. [read post]
26 May 2012, 3:02 pm
Georgia Shelby Bell, University of Minnesota: The Presidency as a Tool for Foreign Policy: An Exploration of the Implications of United States v. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 11:42 am
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v NLRB, 535 U.S. 137 (2002) created some bad law when it held that the NLRB cannot award a backpay remedy to an employee who was not legally authorized to work in the United States. [read post]
16 Apr 2012, 7:42 am
Pallin v. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 6:37 pm
Sutton’s opinion, meanwhile, rested on a dubious distinction between as-applied and facial challenges that would have required the Supreme Court to overrule United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 12:42 pm
” (United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 10:00 pm
There’s no connection to the United States whatsoever. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 12:24 pm
United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982), states that the release of the employee's right to make a claim for over time pay and/or underpaid wages, which an employer has an employee sign, is void in a lawsuit for those unpaid wages and/or overtime wages. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 12:47 pm
Kiobel v. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 6:48 am
Kendall v. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 4:51 am
That's -- that's the view of the Government of the United States, as I understand. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 4:51 am
That's -- that's the view of the Government of the United States, as I understand. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 6:30 am
At Concurring Opinions, Dave Hoffman discusses a recently filed complaint which tests the intentional tort exception to the requirement that a defendant purposefully avail himself of a state’s laws for that state to exercise personal jurisdiction – an exception that Justice Kennedy specifically mentioned in his opinion last Term in McIntyre v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 8:26 pm
Hoffman with the question - "What business does a case like that have in the courts of the United States? [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 2:22 pm
” He then asked, “What business does a case like that have in the courts of the United States? [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 12:05 pm
Hoffman, of course, had a core argument of considerable merit, in Kiobel, et al., v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 10:30 am
Hoffman and U.S. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 1:10 pm
United States, 390 U.S. 39, 53 (1968) (privilege available when invoker “is confronted by substantial and ‘real’ . . . hazards of incriminating); Hoffman v. [read post]
