Search for: "Dukes v. Dukes"
Results 561 - 580
of 3,900
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2018, 7:46 am
Facts: This case (Dukes v. [read post]
11 Dec 2018, 12:25 pm
Plaintiffs in Kassman v. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 7:09 am
That was, essentially, the claim in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 10:22 am
Loewy’s article Why Roe v. [read post]
4 Dec 2018, 9:40 am
Full citation: Full citation: Hansen, D., Milewicz, L., Mangiafico, P., Shaw, W., Begali, M., & McGurrin, V. (2018). [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 2:13 pm
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 4:14 pm
Additional Resources: Joseph v. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 9:10 am
Court of Appeals Ruling The Fifth District Court of Appeals recalled its ruling in State v. [read post]
20 Nov 2018, 7:55 am
I have a SCOTUSBlog preview of Nutraceutical Corp. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2018, 6:20 am
v. [read post]
18 Nov 2018, 7:12 pm
Co. v. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 1:36 pm
But an insightful new article by Duke law professor Ernest Young casts doubt on the optimistic assumptions underlying this view. [read post]
8 Nov 2018, 11:51 am
The post ACS v. [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 3:30 am
Chin & John Ormonde, The War Against Chinese Restaurants, 67 Duke L.J. 681-741 (2018). [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 2:24 pm
She got into her dream school, Duke. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 11:47 am
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 11:38 am
I have written about Beckman v. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 4:33 pm
John Reed Stark Most readers are undoubtedly familiar with the concept of “insider trading” – that is, the purchase or sale by company insiders of their personal holdings in company shares based on material non-public information. [read post]
22 Oct 2018, 5:56 am
Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 367, 131 S. [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 12:40 pm
John Reed Stark Earlier this week, media reports circulated that this past spring Google had exposed the private data of thousands of the Google+ social network users and then opted not to disclose the issue, in part because of concerns that doing so would draw regulatory scrutiny and cause reputational damage. [read post]
