Search for: "Fisher v. District Court" Results 601 - 620 of 831
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jan 2010, 8:15 am by Steve Hall
Supreme Court's decision last year in District Attorney's Office v. [read post]
12 May 2008, 2:37 pm
For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 08a0173p.062008/05/06 Zoarab v. [read post]
8 May 2014, 12:44 pm by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Fisher, The Good Life Financial Group, Inc., and The Good Life Global Enterprises, LLCCase number: 13-cv-00683 (United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin)Case filed: September 30, 2013Qualifying judgment/order: October 16, 2013 3/24/2014 6/23/2014 2014-24 SEC v. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 8:28 am by Jon Sands
But that was before the Supreme Court decided Walker v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 6:34 am
Two cases pending before the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, however, demonstrate the need for Congress to act to provide a third exception. [read post]
31 Aug 2012, 6:31 am by Conor McEvily
Briefly: Lyle Denniston for this blog explains, in non-legal terms, Fisher v. [read post]
2 May 2011, 8:53 am by Jon Sands
The district court in adopting this reading dismissed counts. [read post]
9 Sep 2024, 3:43 pm by Shane Pennington
The district court upheld the final rule as a permissible interpretation of the FSLA under Chevron. [read post]
31 May 2011, 7:23 am
 However, because of a split on the rationale for the holdings, the court remanded the case back to the district court. [read post]
20 Nov 2024, 11:05 am by Jeff Welty
The district court denies the motion. 2024: The Fourth Circuit affirms the district court. [read post]
17 May 2010, 11:10 am by law shucks
The firms are pointing fingers at one another in a $9 million malpractice lawsuit brought by BDO against Morgan Lewis in the District of Columbia Superior Court. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 11:34 am by Kent Scheidegger
The panel is Judges Kleinfeld, McKeown, and Fisher, not the panel I expected.The panel says, "Timing is everything and the district court should take the time necessary to address the State's newly revised protocol in accord with Supreme Court authority. [read post]