Search for: "State v. Back" Results 561 - 580 of 46,057
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2024, 11:09 am by Neil H. Buchanan
"  When the drug manufacturer's lawyer agreed, Alito shot back: "So you're going to make more money? [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 8:08 am by Brett A. Overby
Freed’s companion case), and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to review it in a manner consistent with the Lindke v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 12:29 pm by Eugene Volokh
Procedure: OpenAI removed to federal court, but eventually got bounced back to state court, because it wouldn't disclose all of its indirect members for diversity purposes. [read post]
At that time, the primary insurer did not consider the company’s communication to be a claim and stated it needed additional information. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 7:15 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
The 1997 PDRS was in use, and it specifically stated that its MDT was intended as a guide only. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 4:00 am by Administrator
In the recent case (Taylor v. [read post]
1 Apr 2024, 12:16 am by Marcel Pemsel
Since MHCS’ trade mark has been filed prior to the accession of several Member States to the EU in 2004, 2007 and 2013, MHCS will not have to establish acquired distinctiveness for these ‘new Member States’ (Art. 209(4)(a) EUTMR). [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 1:35 pm by David Adelstein
An opinion out of the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals – Williams Building Company, Inc. v. [read post]
30 Mar 2024, 12:41 pm by Will Baude
I wrote back: "It is not clear whether the Supreme Court's ruling that a harm to MOHELA is necessarily a harm to Missouri also means that MOHELA is the same as the state for other legal purposes," and a paraphrase of my comment was added to the story. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 7:28 pm
The fundamental operative structure of the UNGP State duty to protect was grounded on the premise of international legality embedded within the principles of the state system. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 2:05 pm by Parks, Chesin & Walbert
Proving Pretext  After the employer meets its burden, the onus shifts back to the worker to show that the employer’s stated reason was merely a pretext for discrimination. [read post]