Search for: "Anderson v. Short" Results 21 - 40 of 448
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Jan 2024, 1:19 pm by Kevin LaCroix
”[18] Given the zero cost to procure short reports, plaintiff class action litigators are incentivized to rely on them as evidence “to recover the losses investors suffer due to [alleged] corporate misconduct,” according to the “Activist Short-Sellers Are The Dark Knights Of Wall Street” authors, even if such work product is curated to inflict maximum impact on the stock price.[19] According to a Bloomberg reporter, “[a]ctivist… [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 1:51 pm by Josh Blackman
In short order, the federal courts will have to decide the very questions that Trump v. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am by Marty Lederman
  The short version is that it’s a stone-cold loser, not least because it would have absurd ramifications (such as that it would mean Jefferson Davis would’ve been disqualified from serving in virtually any federal or state office except the presidency and vice-presidency, and that the Foreign Emoluments Clause wouldn’t prohibit the President, Vice-President, and members of Congress from accepting titles, offices, gifts or emoluments from foreign… [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 4:00 am by Administrator
Anderson, PhD Candidate, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, @asandrson Excerpt: Introduction & Part III[Footnotes omitted. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 1:20 pm
  Short -- relatively, at least -- to the point, and completely coherent.And yet I think she's wrong.The question is a simple one:  When you serve a corporation, when does the 30-day removal clock start ticking? [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 7:10 am by Marty Lederman
  Unfortunately, 43 Republican Senators were unwilling to vote for such disqualification, and therefore the 57-vote majority was ten short of what was needed to impose such disqualification in the context of an impeachment proceeding. [read post]
17 Sep 2017, 9:30 pm by ernst
Nobel's Explosives Company, Limited, v Anderson (1894)Seymour Mauskopf6. [read post]
6 Sep 2010, 3:19 pm by David Smith
Suvini v Anderson, Staines County Court, 13 August 2010 It is well known that notices under section 21(4)(a) of the Housing Act 1988 must give notice to a tenant that “after a date specified … being the last day of a period of the tenancy … possession of the dwelling-house is required”. [read post]