Search for: "Long Corporation v. the United States" Results 461 - 480 of 3,660
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Mar 2007, 12:27 am
MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP.Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third CircuitNo. 06-102. [read post]
2 Oct 2021, 5:19 pm
”   “California courts may exercise jurisdiction over nonresidents ‘on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 11:34 pm by INFORRM
On January 21, in its first decision of this term, Citizens United v. [read post]
1 Feb 2013, 3:18 am
The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina recently had occasion to apply the test in Power Beverages v. [read post]
15 Jan 2010, 8:46 am by Don Cruse
Personal jurisdiction over corporate officers requires an allegation that they committed tortious acts connected Texas Dan Kelly and Laura Hofstatter v. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 2:45 pm by Sandi Zellmer
No lands which, before, on, or after December 2, 1980, are conveyed to the State, to any Native Corporation, or to any private party shall be subject to the regulations applicable solely to public lands within such units. [read post]
4 Dec 2019, 8:29 pm by Valerie Oosterveld
She cited some cases about corporate responsibility in war crimes, such as Khulumani (United States), Sanader (Croatia), Kiobel v. [read post]
16 Feb 2010, 3:18 pm by Kyle Olive
  As such, the Washington long arm statute, RCW 4.28.185, when read to incorporate the requirements of the Due Process clause as set for in the United States Supreme Court case of Burger King Corp. v. [read post]
23 May 2024, 2:52 pm by John Hempill and Karl Buhler
This is an issue that actually dates back to the seminal 2005 ruling of the United States Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit in Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2021, 9:00 pm by Samuel Estreicher and Julian Ku
Instead, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that “United States Law…does not rule the world,” a phrase he first used in his opinion for the Court in Kiobel v. [read post]