Search for: "Levell v. State"
Results 3901 - 3920
of 29,814
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jun 2007, 4:33 pm
Although it was not subject to either state or federal enforcement actions or EPA supervision, Atlantic Research acknowledged the high levels of contamination and voluntarily cleaned up the site in accordance with CERCLA. [read post]
28 Aug 2011, 8:16 am
United States v. [read post]
27 Feb 2011, 4:29 am
United States v. [read post]
2 Oct 2010, 7:13 am
Related information: Article by Dave Christensen: Michigan auto law update on McCormick v. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 9:00 am
In the recent decision of United States v. [read post]
11 Oct 2014, 6:00 am
Cobb, Rachel V.; D. [read post]
20 Dec 2017, 7:19 am
Andrée Sophia Blumstein is the solicitor general of Tennessee, which joined an amicus brief with 19 other states in support of the challenger in Janus v. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 12:43 pm
The Court of Appeal stated: “...absent evidence to support a finding of fact that, but for Dr. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 6:45 am
The Court of Appeal notably steered clear of adopting such a rigid approach in 10x Genomics v Nanostring. [read post]
22 Jan 2007, 4:38 am
In STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 5:00 am
According to Wyeth, this expert determination does not represent a "floor" level of safety that states are free to raise, and a state jury verdict that did so would conflict with the FDA's carefully calibrated directive to an affected company. [read post]
27 Nov 2015, 1:03 pm
McCord v. [read post]
27 Sep 2008, 8:03 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2009, 4:23 pm
The case of State v. [read post]
23 Oct 2017, 4:39 am
§ 41713(b)(1)) that “prohibits states from enforcing any law ‘relating to rates, routes, or services’ of any air carrier,” Morales v. [read post]
14 Feb 2024, 9:21 am
However, a heightened level of due diligence is required when, as here, the statute of limitations has expired, and the defendant has challenged the sufficiency of service in court. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am
In Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, the New York State's Court of Appeals said:"In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement* (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013]). [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 5:46 am
In Donohue v Cuomo, 2022 NY Slip Op 00910, the New York State's Court of Appeals said:"In Kolbe v Tibbetts, [it] left open whether a New York court should infer vesting of retiree health insurance rights when construing a collective bargaining agreement* (CBA) (see 22 NY3d 344, 354 [2013]). [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 12:52 am
This means that: "Where the specification does not promise a specific result, no particular level of utility is required; a “mere scintilla” of utility will suffice. [read post]
1 Jul 2017, 9:39 am
This means that: "Where the specification does not promise a specific result, no particular level of utility is required; a “mere scintilla” of utility will suffice. [read post]
