Search for: "State v. Maker"
Results 541 - 560
of 4,656
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Mar 2017, 1:53 pm
Thus, a further important protection of state sovereignty in the doctrine of denial of justice is that a claim for denial of justice itself is not ripe unless the investor has taken its case to the final judicial decision-maker in the state in question. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 3:33 pm
Bose Corp. v. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 4:49 am
Yesterday I wrote about the case that focused the national spotlight on State Farm – Campbell v. [read post]
7 May 2013, 8:00 am
See SEC v. [read post]
3 Sep 2020, 5:57 am
In that case, I believe it would be appropriate to say that whether or not they understand patent law, they'd have lost all of their credibility in the field of antitrust law--especially those who turned a deaf ear to counsel for suppliers at those Nokia v. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 1:42 am
In addressing the very nature of human rights law, Lord Reed called with approval upon the words of Lord Cooke in R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532: “The truth is, I think, that some rights are inherent and fundamental to democratic civilised society. [read post]
28 Feb 2008, 12:44 pm
Baker & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government& Ors [2008] EWCA Civ 141. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 12:13 am
Steury v. [read post]
5 Nov 2010, 3:22 am
A forum-shopped Philadelphia state-court jury didn't care, and assessed $89 million compensatory and punitive damages against the maker of the carburetor, finding it 100% responsible. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 7:45 am
Remember Marbury v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 7:01 am
“Although there is no clear legal rule as to how much overlap is needed among decision maker groups for employees to be similarly situated, requiring absolute congruence would too easily enable employers to evade liability for violation of federal employment laws,” the appeals court said (Smothers v Solvay Chemicals, Inc, January 21, 2014, Matheson, S Jr). [read post]
20 Sep 2007, 5:42 pm
With respect to interstate commerce, the state's claims would penalize the auto makers for engaging in what had heretofore been lawful commerce. [read post]
25 Mar 2014, 4:30 am
The Press explains:On March 8, 1971, the Supreme Court of the United States decided a case, Griggs v. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 1:52 pm
The seminal case, Greenman v. [read post]
8 Aug 2011, 1:14 am
Here is the abstract: Nation states are under attack by non-state actors; whether non-state actors present an existential threat to nation states is debatable, probably unlikely. [read post]
7 May 2015, 12:36 pm
See Consent Order, Alamo Beer Co., LLC v. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 6:43 am
The court concluded that the named plaintiffs were not the policy makers responsible.In Triplett v. [read post]
9 May 2013, 5:34 am
Mensing and Wyeth v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 4:10 am
As Lord Carnwath concluded after his illuminating discussion of the standard required of planning reasons (at paras 35-42), the question will be “whether the information so provided by the authority leaves room for ‘genuine doubt … as to what (it) has decided and why’” (at para 42, citing Sir Thomas Bingham MR in Clarke Homes Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 66 P & CR 263). [read post]
20 Apr 2017, 3:31 pm
Anderson v. [read post]
