Search for: "Allstate Insurance Co. v. Law" Results 521 - 540 of 549
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Jun 2007, 10:16 am
Amoco Oil Co., 776 N.E.2d 151, 163-64 (Ill. 2002); Weinberg v. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 4:43 pm by Tom Goldstein
Allstate Insurance Company Docket: 08-1008 Argument date: November 2, 2009 Question presented: Plaintiffs sometimes sue for violations of state law in federal court. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 3:23 pm
Allstate Insurance Co., Justice Scalia explained that because Section 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with Section 1447(c), Section 1447(d) precludes review only of remands based on Section 1447(c) - for present purposes, a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [read post]
12 Jan 2021, 2:19 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  This has not been the case for insurers in the professional liability insurance industry. [read post]
30 Jun 2010, 2:55 pm by Tom Goldstein
Allstate Insurance Co., the Court held that state law cannot block federal class actions (a pro-plaintiff result) in an opinion by Justice Scalia (!) [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 9:01 pm by Joanna L. Grossman
Allstate Insurance Co., in which the court held that prior salary could constitute a “factor other than sex” if it “effectuate[s] some business policy” and the employer uses it “reasonably in light of [its] stated purpose as well as its other practices. [read post]
25 May 2009, 11:42 am
and Insurance Wars Episode II-or is it really Episode V-the-Decider Strikes Back. [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 2:54 pm by Kevin LaCroix
In its June 21, 2021 decision in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Oct 2010, 9:26 am by Bexis
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 928 A.2d 186 (Pa. 2007), is irrelevant. [read post]
20 Oct 2011, 4:13 pm by Paul Karlsgodt
Allstate Insurance Co., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said yes. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 12:49 pm
Allstate Insurance Co., 536 F.3d 418 (5th Cir. 2008) (interpreting a so-called "parens patriae" action to fall within CAFA's definitions because the "real party in interest" was not the State, but the policyholders on whose behalf the State had sued). [read post]