Search for: "Connecticut v. Massachusetts" Results 521 - 540 of 723
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Apr 2011, 6:09 pm
Meanwhile the neighboring Boston region, which reviews Connecticut Social Security disability claims as well as those filed in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, used video in almost 35% of hearings during the same time. [read post]
22 Apr 2011, 12:50 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
One might have thought this issue was settled in Massachusetts v. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 11:46 am by Jonathan H. Adler
First, it is difficult to argue that their claim is not displaced by the Clean Air Act’s authorization of extensive regulation of greenhouse gases post–Massachusetts v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 11:20 am by Rhead Enion
I suppose that is not surprising, given the Massachusetts v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 6:06 am by Nabiha Syed
 In an op-ed for the Christian Science Monitor, Megan Brown describes the case as “novel, and far more aggressive and disruptive than” Massachusetts v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 3:39 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Second, I think standing here is distinguishable from Massachusetts v. [read post]
16 Apr 2011, 4:56 pm by Lyle Denniston
The Supreme Court, however, ruled in 2007 in the case of Massachusetts v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am by Bexis
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 818 A.2d 769 (Conn. 2003), the court held that a Connecticut consumer protection claim escaped preclusion under the state’s exclusive product liability statute because the claim “does not seek a remedy for personal injury, death or property damage. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 2:59 am by Marie Louise
(Technology & Marketing Law Blog) District Court Massachusetts – A good tacking decision: Boathouse Group, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Mar 2011, 1:32 pm by Chris Martin
Massachusetts (Mike Aylward) Our Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association v. [read post]
24 Feb 2011, 6:46 pm by Betsy McKenzie
(Dist. of Conn.)which addresses the rights of federal employees in Connecticut, Vermont, and New Hampshire, and follows on the heels of the Massachusetts Federal District Court ruling last summer in Gill v. [read post]