Search for: "DUKES v. STATE"
Results 441 - 460
of 2,262
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2019, 6:49 am
The BCC moved forward with the proposed rule anyway, and now our L.A. marijuana delivery attorneys are monitoring the situation, as cities appear poised to duke it out in court. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 8:00 am
” Western Surety Co. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 8:00 am
” Western Surety Co. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 8:27 am
Dukes and the 2013 decision in Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 5:01 am
Such a change would likely require changes to the federal and state constitutions. [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 7:06 am
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). [read post]
2 Jan 2019, 7:39 am
And as Representative Luis V. [read post]
21 Dec 2018, 8:47 am
Other Patent Victories: Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 7:46 am
Facts: This case (Dukes v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 12:25 pm
Plaintiffs in Kassman v. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 10:22 am
Loewy’s article Why Roe v. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 2:13 pm
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:10 am
Court of Appeals Ruling The Fifth District Court of Appeals recalled its ruling in State v. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 7:12 pm
State Bd. of Ed. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 11:51 am
The post ACS v. [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 3:30 am
Chin & John Ormonde, The War Against Chinese Restaurants, 67 Duke L.J. 681-741 (2018). [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 2:24 pm
She got into her dream school, Duke. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 11:38 am
I have written about Beckman v. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 4:33 pm
John Reed Stark Most readers are undoubtedly familiar with the concept of “insider trading” – that is, the purchase or sale by company insiders of their personal holdings in company shares based on material non-public information. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 12:40 pm
John Reed Stark Earlier this week, media reports circulated that this past spring Google had exposed the private data of thousands of the Google+ social network users and then opted not to disclose the issue, in part because of concerns that doing so would draw regulatory scrutiny and cause reputational damage. [read post]
