Search for: "United States v. Marte" Results 341 - 360 of 845
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Aug 2013, 3:56 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
United States, 195 F.2d 433, 436 (10th Cir.1952); see also, e.g., Ware v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 4:37 am by Lorene Park
Indeed, commentators have proclaimed that the policy would spur a “spate” of new suits, starting with Whittaker v America’s Car-Mart, Inc, a complaint filed July 19, 2013 (E.D. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 1:22 pm by Florian Mueller
Case scheduled Sep 11, 2013 10:00 a.m. in United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Howard T. [read post]
16 Jul 2013, 8:55 am by Abbott & Kindermann
The state and the Park District jointly prepared the Eastshore State Park General Plan. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
Why the Hobby Lobby Reasoning Is Dangerous to Hobby Lobby’s Bottom Line and to the United States The Hobby Lobby reasoning is also a hazard for for-profit companies, as Chick-Fil-A has learned the hard way. [read post]
12 Jun 2013, 1:53 pm
  Perrigo Company and Perrigo Israel (collectively, "Perrigo") are pharmaceutical companies that develop, manufacture, market and distribute generic pharmaceutical products for sale throughout the United States. [read post]
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]
5 Jun 2013, 9:46 am by Sheppard Mullin
By Brian Murphy and Jonathan Sokolowski On May 29, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Cuevas v. [read post]
4 Jun 2013, 8:45 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
Wal-Mart including an analysis of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Amgen Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 1:44 pm by Rebecca Blaw
  Such a head-scratching, impractical rule cannot be reconciled with the United States Supreme Court’s class action decisions in cases such as Wal-Mart v. [read post]
31 May 2013, 4:17 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
United States, 431 U.S. 324, (1977) -- “dooms the plaintiffs’ request for certification under Rule 23(b)(2). [read post]