Search for: "United States v. Marte" Results 281 - 300 of 847
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jun 2013, 10:13 am by Sara Hutchins Jodka
Davis appealed, and during that appeal, the United States Supreme Court decided the employer-friendly, anti-class action case, Dukes. [read post]
20 Dec 2014, 7:27 pm
  That has already been made clear in the United States, where members of the Republican Party vowed to take countermeasures. [read post]
15 Oct 2012, 2:07 pm by Greg Mersol
Interestingly, although the court did not cite the decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 10:27 am
The magistrate had first addressed Article III, stating that a named plaintiff  must establish standing before a class can be certified and citing Wal-Mart v. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 7:46 am by Joy Waltemath
., will pay $7.5 million to resolve a suit by an employee who claimed the retail giant refused to provide the same health insurance benefits to her same-sex spouse that it extends to opposite-sex spouses, even after the Supreme Court’s landmark United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 10:50 am by Sheppard Mullin
George King of the United States District Court for the Central District of California issued an order in Pedroza v. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 9:59 am
But it could inspire similar bans in other provinces, which have already followed Ontario’s lead in cutting prices for generic drugs.Abella referred to a 2007 Ontario government study that found some of the leading generic drugs were three times more expensive in Ontario than in France, Germany, and Britain, five times more costly than in the United States, and 22 times more expensive than in New Zealand.Shoppers Drug Mart had its own Sanis private-label brand. [read post]
29 Mar 2011, 9:40 am by John Elwood
United States, 10-6866, and Setser v. [read post]
9 Apr 2014, 5:32 am
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently denied certification of a putative securities law class after finding that plaintiff failed to put forth actual facts showing adequacy and predominance, as required to satisfy the “stringent standards” of Rule 23 pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]