Search for: "The United States, Petitioner"
Results 5061 - 5080
of 8,961
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Jan 2014, 11:20 pm
Based on the various Justices' voting patterns in recent cases (particularly in the 2013 Amgen case), it isn’t clear at all that there are five votes to set aside the Basic presumption Second, in addition to their question whether the Basic presumption should be revisited, the petitioners also sought to have the Court consider “Whether, in a case where the plaintiff invokes the presumption of reliance to seek class certification, the defendant may rebut the presumption… [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 7:05 pm
The beneficiary is a citizen of France, and has a Bachelor’s degree from the United States. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 6:35 am
Next spring, in the Halliburton case, the United States Supreme Court is expected to reconsider the Basic ruling that, twenty-five years ago, adopted the fraud-on-the-market theory and has since facilitated securities class action litigation. [read post]
6 Jan 2014, 5:00 am
E-3 principal nonimmigrant aliens must be coming to the United States solely to perform services in a “specialty occupation”. [read post]
5 Jan 2014, 8:52 pm
He came to the United States without the inspection and admission and was caught at the border. [read post]
4 Jan 2014, 12:21 pm
The shares of stock and some bonds were transferred on March 28, 1969; United States bonds, on May 15, 1969 and most of the other bonds, on September 30, 1968. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 2:11 pm
The Court stated: “We recognize that when a project may cause a physical change to the environment, CEQA requires a consideration whether the change will have a potential impact on people….None of the authorities cited by [petitioner], however, holds that a significant effect on the environment must be found when potential health risks are confined to people associated with a project. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 12:18 pm
A Nassau County Probate Lawyer said that, an officer of the United Music Corporation was called as a witness by petitioner. [read post]
3 Jan 2014, 6:27 am
United States. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 8:00 am
” Citing United States Dept. of Defense v Federal Labor Relations Auth., 510 US 487.Rejecting the union official’s argument that the release of this information to his union is in the public interest since the union is attempting to ensure that the contractor paid appropriate wages and that the union is gathering necessary data should an underpaid employee desire its representation under Labor Law § 220-g, the Appellate Division said that the redacted payroll… [read post]
1 Jan 2014, 3:20 pm
She further asserted that the non-legal expenses sought by Petitioner were excessive because her husband did not need to travel to the United States with her because he was not a party to these proceedings. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 7:44 pm
United States v. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 12:17 pm
The cases cited by the petitioner in support of this position are not applicable and the general statements made by authors of texts which appear to support the theory are not persuasive and have not been enacted into law by either our State Legislature or the Congress of the United States. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 8:38 am
Simply put, Section 5 stated that if any jurisdiction wanted to make changes to laws relevant to voting, it first must have that aspiration upheld by the authority of the Attorney General of the United States or a three judge panel of the U.S. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 5:00 am
• You intend to marry within 90 days of your fiancé(e) entering the United States. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 4:00 am
Petitioner did not appeal.The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2013/2013_08575.htm. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 1:31 pm
(The latter relevantly stated that the President ought to be the sole source of official statements regarding the United States’ relations with foreign powers.) [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 9:17 am
” In any case, the petitioner points to the case of United States v. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 3:16 pm
The subsequent order of dismissal recited that the petition was dismissed because petitioner has withdrawn the petition and does not wish to cooperate with services at the Center for Children. [read post]
28 Dec 2013, 6:25 am
Petitioner alleged that shortly after reaching this agreement, Respondent unlawfully removed the children from Singapore to the United States. [read post]
