Search for: "United States v. District Court" Results 6881 - 6900 of 34,743
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Dec 2021, 9:00 am
On December 2, 2021, addressing issues related to the definition of “disposal” and compliance with the National Contingency Plan (“NCP”) in a claim brought under Section 107 of CERCLA, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied both Plaintiff Stanford University’s (“Stanford”) motion for summary judgment and Defendant Agilent Technologies, Inc. [read post]
United States, the court will consider whether the federal indictment against Capitol Riot defendant Joseph Fischer substantiates a charge under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
23 May 2022, 7:40 am by Steven Cohen
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc – United States District Court – Northern District of California – May 6th, 2022) involves a purported class action complaint related to unpaid wages. [read post]
19 Apr 2009, 6:00 am
However the court upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's challenge to the frequency of religious services in his prison unit. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 12:50 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
United States are seeking Supreme Court intervention to revive their case against the federal government.] [read post]
1 Oct 2015, 9:30 am by Lyle Denniston
  That 1872 ruling, in the case of United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2009, 11:02 pm
A restraining order to prevent his transfer was vacated by the US Supreme Court and the action was remanded to the District Court. [read post]
21 Mar 2018, 7:57 am by Kent Scheidegger
Davis, the Court held that the Fifth Circuit had applied the wrong standard to review a district court decision to deny a funding request in a capital habeas case under 18 U.S.C. [read post]
6 Aug 2015, 6:17 am by Mark S. Humphreys
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division issued a ruling that attorneys handling these types of claims need to know about and read. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 9:47 am by Lyle Denniston
  That showing is sufficient to warrant a stay of the district court’s order, as the equities lie heavily in the state’s favor. [read post]