Search for: "Hart v. State"
Results 421 - 440
of 1,154
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2016, 6:45 am
McLaughlin and Yafit Cohn, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, on Friday, May 13, 2016 Tags: Acquisition agreements, Contracts, Corporate fraud, Delaware cases, Delaware law, Due diligence, Fair values,Fairness review, Liability standards, Merger litigation, Mergers & acquisitions, Reliance Genuine Parts Co. v. [read post]
15 May 2016, 5:50 am
Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in EEOC v. [read post]
3 May 2016, 2:30 pm
Hopefully BMG v. [read post]
11 Apr 2016, 12:27 pm
There are significant additions to the Senate bill that are not presently contained in the House bill, including a whistleblower immunity provision, a shorter statute of limitation (3 years v. 5 years), lower exemplary damages (2 times v. 3 times actual damages), as well as increased criminal penalties for a violation of the Economic Espionage Act and it also includes portions of the DTSA as predicate offenses for the RICO Act. [read post]
27 Mar 2016, 2:54 pm
Section V then posits an alternative analysis, normatively autonomous (though not entirely free) of the orbit of the state, a vision possible only when the ideological presumptions of the state are suspended. [read post]
24 Mar 2016, 10:18 am
Hart v. [read post]
11 Mar 2016, 7:55 am
HLA Hart’s discussion of the internal viewpoint on an institution; less worry about litigation and more about what one ought to do. [read post]
1 Mar 2016, 6:59 am
Russia or Perinçek v. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 3:19 am
In Broida, the court concluded that jurisdiction could be exercised over an action involving the internal affairs of a foreign corporation doing business in New York, unless New York was an inappropriate or inconvenient forum (id. at 91-92; see Hart v General Motors Corp., 129 AD2d 179, 185-186 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 608 [1987]). [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 3:19 am
In Broida, the court concluded that jurisdiction could be exercised over an action involving the internal affairs of a foreign corporation doing business in New York, unless New York was an inappropriate or inconvenient forum (id. at 91-92; see Hart v General Motors Corp., 129 AD2d 179, 185-186 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 608 [1987]). [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 3:19 am
In Broida, the court concluded that jurisdiction could be exercised over an action involving the internal affairs of a foreign corporation doing business in New York, unless New York was an inappropriate or inconvenient forum (id. at 91-92; see Hart v General Motors Corp., 129 AD2d 179, 185-186 [1st Dept 1987], lv denied 70 NY2d 608 [1987]). [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 2:49 pm
Miller v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 12:43 pm
the Hart and Keller v. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 12:30 am
Williams's Defenders of the Unborn: The Pro-Life Movement before Roe v. [read post]
31 Jan 2016, 4:07 pm
The Panopticon Blog has a post entitled “Enhanced Criminal Records Check Mate” concerning the case of R (P & A) v Secretary of State for Justice [2016] EWHC 89 (Admin). [read post]
27 Jan 2016, 9:15 am
I hear them in the voice of my Constitutional Law professor, Robert Bork, and in the words of John Hart Ely, whose scholarly elaboration of the logic of Footnote Four in Democracy and Distrust posed the most cogent challenge to the Court’s expansive constitutional decisions in the realm of reproductive autonomy. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 11:48 am
And I wonder: If the Hartes had made their cause of action trespass rather than 42 U.S.C. 1983, should qualified immunity still apply given that there was no qualified immunity doctrine in cases like Entick v. [read post]
18 Jan 2016, 9:53 am
., The Law of Misstatements: 50 Years on from Hedley Byrne v Heller (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2015). [read post]
11 Jan 2016, 4:00 am
Wright, After Obergefell v. [read post]
30 Dec 2015, 2:07 pm
Vehicle Intelligence v. [read post]
