Search for: "Unknown Party v. Arizona, State of" Results 41 - 60 of 90
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Mar 2016, 8:58 am by Jon Sands
[Ed. note: This case was handled by the Arizona FPD.]United States v. [read post]
24 Dec 2015, 8:20 am
  Until this decision, we thought the Third Circuit was one of the better places to litigate third-party payer economic loss cases. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 7:00 am by Amy Howe
  She is critical, for example, of O’Connor’s role in Arizona’s failure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s, observing that “O’Connor was caught between her ambitions in a conservative Republican Party and her professed concern for women’s rights. [read post]
1 Jul 2015, 8:01 am by Marc Climaco
On Monday the United States Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision in Arizona State Legislature v. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 6:20 am
’ In re Application of the United States for Historical Cell Site Data, supra. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 6:41 am
District Court for the District of Arizona (2005). . . [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 12:56 pm
  Arizona is one of the relatively few states where the highest court has never passed on the learned intermediary rule. [read post]
7 Apr 2014, 7:51 am by Lyle Denniston
The Court did grant one new case for review in its next Term, a case testing what information a party in a state court case must provide in order to have that case transferred to a federal court . [read post]
14 Feb 2013, 5:18 am by Terry Hart
Marsh, regarded as the origin of the fair use doctrine in the United States. [read post]
23 Oct 2012, 4:44 pm by Josephine Liu
Last week, Judge Ungaro of the Southern District of Florida granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss in Burrows v. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 5:01 am by DaytonDUI
”  This flirts with overturning the 1984 Ohio Supreme Court ruling in State v. [read post]
5 Jul 2012, 6:40 am by John Elwood
  And bad news for Arizona in Ryan v. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:57 am
  After making this connection the court turns its attention to Medicare’s rights under § 1395y(b)(3)(A)[5] and emphasizes that this section does not designate what entity may bring such an action, supporting Humana’s position that any private party may bring suit when that party is a secondary payer seeking recourse from a primary payer. [read post]
2 Jul 2012, 11:57 am
  After making this connection the court turns its attention to Medicare’s rights under § 1395y(b)(3)(A)[5] and emphasizes that this section does not designate what entity may bring such an action, supporting Humana’s position that any private party may bring suit when that party is a secondary payer seeking recourse from a primary payer. [read post]
4 May 2012, 7:31 am by Robert Chesney
Upon consideration of the parties’ written submissions, including post-hearing supplemental briefs, and the hearing testimony and evidence, the Court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress his post-arrest statements on September 8, 2011. [read post]