Search for: "SUITS v. STATE"
Results 461 - 480
of 32,930
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2015, 7:21 pm
The question is whether Sachs’ purchase of her rail pass in the United States brought her suit within the commercial activity exception. [read post]
10 Dec 2009, 11:00 pm
According to the complaint (full text) in Arkansas Society of Freethinkers v. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 8:10 pm
In Club Members for an Honest Election v. [read post]
12 Jun 2017, 2:11 pm
Oglala Sioux v. [read post]
8 Jun 2020, 4:15 am
Stevens v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 9:24 am
" Meanwhile, Goodridge v. [read post]
6 May 2008, 1:09 pm
Great Western Drywall, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 7:30 am
Furthermore, the case cited Nott v. [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 4:23 am
The complaint (full text) in Maddonna v. [read post]
1 Jan 2019, 5:04 pm
(Wheeling), R & V Associates Ltd. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 2:43 pm
United States ex rel. [read post]
21 Oct 2021, 7:33 am
Senate, and a DOJ antitrust suit against Google—allegedly linked to whether Defendants appropriately moderated certain types of content. [read post]
9 Nov 2018, 4:15 am
The complaint (full text) in Adam Community Center v. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 4:00 am
The complaint (full text) in Katz v. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 4:05 am
According to the complaint (full text) in Shultz v. [read post]
22 May 2024, 10:06 am
The Supreme Court recognized in Arizona v. [read post]
28 Sep 2015, 3:00 am
Similarly, in Zuckman v. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 10:25 am
As the state's Fourth District Court of Appeal explains in Berry v. [read post]
22 Sep 2011, 6:07 pm
[T]his interest is implicated even when the suit is brought indirectly — against a civilian contractor — rather than directly against the United States itself. [read post]
30 Sep 2021, 2:41 pm
The suit was brought under the Cartwright Act instead of the federal antitrust laws because smartphone owners are indirect purchasers of smartphone chips and are barred from suit by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois Brick Co. v. [read post]
