Search for: "United States v. Mobil Corp."
Results 361 - 380
of 579
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jul 2011, 6:17 am
United States: One of the two cases affirmed by an equally divided court, the decision illustrates the minimal impact Justice Elena Kagan's recusals had on the term.Honorable Mentions: Snyder v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:00 am
Pool Offshore, Inc., 182 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1999) was still good law in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stewart v. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:00 am
Pool Offshore, Inc., 182 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1999) was still good law in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stewart v. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 3:16 pm
(citing Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 11:52 am
On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 8:15 am
In AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 5:00 am
Exxon Mobil Corp., 09-7125, July 8, 2011, the DC Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, held that corporations could in fact be sued. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 2:25 pm
by Kenneth Anderson It's likely old news to most OJ readers, but we should still note in passing that the DC Circuit, in a divided panel, handed down an important ATS case, John Doe VIII v Exxon Mobil Corp. [read post]
8 Jul 2011, 9:06 am
Exxon Mobil Corp.. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 3:41 pm
Finally, on April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
29 Jun 2011, 2:41 pm
Finally, on April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 6:45 pm
2011 will surely go down as the Year of the Class Action in the Supreme Court of the United States. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 4:27 am
Autonomy Corp., PLC, et. al. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 9:02 pm
Specifically, this note analyzes three different cases from three different fields of law decided by U.S. courts that illustrate this problem: United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 10:24 am
Exxon Mobil Corp., No. 09-7125 (D.C. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 9:40 am
Plaintiff proposed a nationwide class (or a New York class) of all consumers who purchased or leased new 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 MINI vehicles equipped with Run-Flat Extended Mobility Technology tires manufactured by Goodyear and sold or leased in the United States whose Tires have gone flat and been replaced. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 7:01 am
In AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 5:01 am
In addition, as the Court discussed at length in its Memorandum of Decision, after the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:47 pm
Finally, on April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 11:47 am
Finally, on April 27, 2011, the Supreme Court held in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
