Search for: "State v. Laws" Results 4201 - 4220 of 156,337
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Mar 2012, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Mar. 6, 2012), the Missouri Supreme Court held that the FAA, as interpreted in Concepcion, did not preempt general state-law unconscionability principles. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 11:42 pm by Gilles Cuniberti
State Immunity, Violation of Human Rights and the Individual’s Right for Reparations – A Comment on the ICJ’s Judgment of February 2, 2012 (Germany v. [read post]
23 Apr 2025, 1:17 pm by NARF
(Discrimination; Standing; Testers) United States of America, et al. v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 6:37 am by INFORRM
Background The plaintiffs were husband and wife and were Deputies in the States of Jersey Assembly (“the States”). [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 1:59 am
Regina (Manchester City Council) v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council Court of Appeal "Once the Secretary of State for Health had determined that a person was ordinarily resident in a particular area, that local authority had the responsibility to fund a care package, albeit that another local authority had set up the package. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 7:01 am by William C. Miller and David F. Klein
The key issue: whether a choice-of-law provision in a marine insurance policy can be rendered unenforceable if its enforcement would conflict with the “strong public policy” of the forum state. [read post]
4 Aug 2015, 4:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
S199119, in order to address whether the Federal Arbitration Act, as construed in Concepcion, preempts generally applicable state-law rules of contractual unconscionability. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 2:09 am
Secretary of State for Department of Work & Pensions Wetherill & Others v. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 9:01 pm by Sherry F. Colb
One was whether the Court had jurisdiction to review a collateral state court’s decision not to apply Miller v. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 8:55 pm by Lawrence Solum
McCormick (Saint Louis University - School of Law) has posted Disparate Impact and Equal Protection after Ricci v. [read post]