Search for: "State v. Motz" Results 41 - 60 of 101
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Feb 2015, 7:42 am by Joy Waltemath
Addressing  in the first instance what is meant by the phrase “public disclosure” pursuant to the False Claims Act, the appeals court adopted the approach held by the majority of circuits—that “disclosure” means being affirmatively revealed to the public at large—and eschewed the Seventh Circuit’s narrower interpretation, put to ill use by the district court below (U.S. ex rel Wilson v Graham County Soil and Water Conservation District,… [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 1:04 pm by Jane Chong
 Abu Ali alleged he was tortured while in Saudi custody for two years, with FBI participation; in 2005, he was indicted by a federal grand jury in Virginia and flown to the United States. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 7:32 am by Joy Waltemath
Because the district court erred in holding to the contrary, the appeals court reversed its order dismissing the employee’s disability discrimination claim, in a case that the National Employment Lawyers Association and AARP weighed in on as amicus (Summers v Altarum Institute, January 23, 2014, Motz, D). [read post]
21 Sep 2012, 12:14 pm by KC Johnson
To take one example: in a high-profile 2011 decision, Henry v. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 1:24 pm by Larkin Reynolds
Harvie Wilkinson penned the opinion for the unanimous panel, which also included Judge Diana Gribbon Motz and Judge Allyson Kay Duncan. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 12:55 pm by Kenneth Anderson
” Although Padilla’s allegations (if true) would have stated serious violations of his constitutional rights arising out of his long-term incommunicado detention as an “enemy combatant” (and his alleged abuse while in custody), the panel (Wilkinson, Motz, Duncan) declined to recognize a Bivens remedy. [read post]
23 Jan 2012, 12:05 pm by Steve Vladeck
Jack just flagged the Fourth Circuit’s unanimous 39-page opinion throwing out Lebron v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 5:40 am by Alan Rozenshtein
A member of the panel then states that, in her opinion, a Bivens cause of action does not require congressional action, and that the government’s argument relies on United States v. [read post]