Search for: "Securities Co. v. United States" Results 501 - 520 of 4,131
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Aug 2011, 5:00 am by Bexis
United of Omaha Life Insurance Co., 430 F. [read post]
7 Feb 2019, 4:47 pm by INFORRM
A law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with this requirement, provided the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity to give the individual protection against interference which is arbitrary: Goodwin v United Kingdom (1996) 22 EHRR 123 , para 31; Sorvisto v Finland , para 112. [read post]
11 Jan 2018, 7:05 am by Aurora Barnes
United States 17-5165 Issue: Whether Richardson v. [read post]
9 Oct 2020, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
            Despite the asymmetry between the two books, two concerns unite them that deserve critical treatment. [read post]
25 Apr 2011, 5:54 pm by Paul Karlsgodt
The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument today in the case of Erica P. [read post]
31 Jan 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Based on data from Cornerstone Research through Sept. 30, 2023, plaintiffs were on pace to file approximately 216 federal and state securities class actions last year — a slight increase over the 208 suits brought in 2022 and roughly on par with the 218 suits brought in 2021. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 9:48 am by Legal Talk Network
Sanford secured the largest employment verdict in United States history. [read post]
9 Dec 2016, 11:00 am
Toomey argued that the district court had misunderstood several important technical aspects of Upstream surveillance and, as a result, had underestimated the scope and scale of the United States government’s searches of private internet communications. [read post]
2 May 2013, 10:49 am by Joel R. Brandes
The family came to the United States in August 2011 in connection with efforts to secure effective medical and rehabilitative treatment for D.E., who was autistic. [read post]
20 Dec 2018, 1:00 pm by Zach ZhenHe Tan
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. applied the presumption of extraterritoriality to the ATS and concluded that courts had jurisdiction only over ATS claims that “touch and concern” the territory of the United States with “sufficient force. [read post]