Search for: "A. B. A. v. Wood" Results 501 - 520 of 900
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Sep 2013, 5:00 am by Matthew C. Bouchard, Esq.
  After storms passed through your neck-of-the-woods last week, however, your “new” roof leaked. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm by Mary Dwyer
§ 3730(b)(5) – which creates a race to the courthouse to reward relators who promptly disclose fraud against the government, while prohibiting repetitive, parasitic claims – functions as a “onecase- at-a-time” rule allowing an infinite series of duplicative claims so long as no prior claim is pending at the time of filing. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 8:28 am by Joy Waltemath
As the government notes, this question is “of exceptional importance concerning asserted RFRA rights of for-profit corporations,” and points out that contrary holdings have been reached by both the Third and Sixth Circuits in the Conestoga Wood and Autocam Corp. v Seblious cases. [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 5:55 am by Andrew Trask
Judge Alsup has issued a new opinion denying certification in a lending-discrimination class action against Wells Fargo: Pileggi v. [read post]
17 Jul 2013, 3:47 pm
The language used was that specifically suggested by the Court of Appeals in the case of People v. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 1:50 pm by WIMS
Deferral for CO2 Emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Programs ("Deferral Rule"), 76 Fed. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 1:41 pm
The other day, I was blogging about tags, and somebody asked what are all the tags. [read post]
1 May 2013, 10:28 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Wood- stream Corp., 520 F.3d 1337, 1342–43 (Fed. [read post]
19 Apr 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
  Thus, the conclusory allegations against [him] are insufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis and, as such, [he] has been fraudulently joined and should be dismissed.Id. at *3.A similar ruling from our neck of the woods (Pennsylvania) occurred in Positive Results Marketing, Inc. v. [read post]