Search for: "Reach v. State"
Results 3821 - 3840
of 37,350
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Aug 2007, 2:09 am
The jury in a state trial acquitted on a number of racketeering charges, but could reach no verdict on seven predicate acts, and so indicated on the verdict form. [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 9:05 pm
In West Virginia v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 11:05 am
This agreement was reached according to routine CERCLA practice and was consistent with the United States' obligation to avoid drawn-out litigation. [read post]
18 May 2011, 1:46 pm
The Appeals Court said, ". . .we do not reach the preemption question but, rather, hold that, during the rulemaking process, the Coast Guard failed to comply with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 8:01 am
Quon v. [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 10:52 am
Justice Brooke in Tomlyn v. [read post]
29 Dec 2009, 3:06 pm
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. [read post]
11 May 2007, 6:10 am
KSR v. [read post]
4 Jan 2013, 6:13 am
Before reaching its own conclusion, the Dietz Court compared the reasoning of the Eleventh Circuit in Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Dec 2022, 6:55 am
This is an interesting legal issue and I am sure it will reach the Supreme Court some day, but the Court of Appeals decides it cannot reach these issues on the merits because there are no damages available for such a violation.The case is Soule v. [read post]
16 May 2017, 8:03 am
Mandel (1972), or Kerry v. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 10:19 am
Readers interested in learning about another Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act case currently before the Supreme Court, Federal Republic of Germany v. [read post]
15 Feb 2012, 1:33 am
Savage; Powell v United Kingdom [2000] 30 EHRR CD 362). [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 1:08 pm
(Perhaps that outcome will produce a new round of equal protection litigation against the state for allowing some same-sex marriages to go forward but prohibiting others; the state can offer up as its rational reason for its distinction the mandate of Perry v. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 10:06 am
On cross-appeal, the panel held that Pauma was not entitled to seek redress under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because the State and Pauma actually reached a gaming Compact. [read post]
12 Oct 2021, 5:12 pm
Corp. v. [read post]
29 May 2024, 6:00 am
In Sheetz v. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 7:59 am
As discussed here, on May 18, 2011, the California Intermediate Court of Appeal held in the Luther v. [read post]
25 Feb 2014, 11:00 am
Flook, drew this notion in part from Neilson v. [read post]
6 Oct 2018, 11:28 am
As a matter of principle, Part I could be excluded if, on facts, the juridical seat is outside India or the law governing the arbitration agreement is a law other than Indian law , as was held in Union of India v. [read post]
