Search for: "State v. Ross " Results 301 - 320 of 1,802
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Nov 2021, 6:26 am by Joel R. Brandes
Slip Op. 06460 (1st Dept.,2021) the Appellate Division held that Family Court could exercise subject matter jurisdiction in this family offense proceeding notwithstanding that the offenses occurred out of state (see Opportune N. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2021, 2:07 pm by Kevin LaCroix
 Claim handlers continue to wrestle with enduring long-tail Exchange Act claims, federal and state Securities Act claims, and shareholder derivative suits without respite. [read post]
8 Nov 2021, 12:25 pm by Eugene Volokh
Ross, Suchoff, Egert, Hankin, Maidenbaum & Mazel, P.C., No. 96 CIV. 1756 (LAP), 1997 WL 171011, *6 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
8 Nov 2021, 12:25 pm by Eugene Volokh
Ross, Suchoff, Egert, Hankin, Maidenbaum & Mazel, P.C., No. 96 CIV. 1756 (LAP), 1997 WL 171011, *6 (S.D.N.Y. [read post]
5 Nov 2021, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Over at Bloomberg Law IJers Josh Windham and Daryl James urge the Supreme Court to take up the case of Tuggle v. [read post]
5 Nov 2021, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Over at Bloomberg Law IJers Josh Windham and Daryl James urge the Supreme Court to take up the case of Tuggle v. [read post]
5 Nov 2021, 7:47 am by fjhinojosa
Wendy Ross, Protecting the Child Bride: Following Texas’ Middleground Approach, 44 U. [read post]
22 Oct 2021, 2:29 pm by Andrew Hamm
Ross 21-468Issues: (1) Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant commerce clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in the Supreme Court’s decisions is now a dead letter; and (2) whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding… [read post]
5 Oct 2021, 10:39 am by Daniel Harawa
While the justices pressed both sides, there was one sticking point for the government that many justices kept returning to: United States v. [read post]