Search for: "State v. Law" Results 7981 - 8000 of 173,907
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Nov 2013, 8:05 pm by Walter Olson
AU Optronics: is state attorney general’s parens patriae antitrust suit removable to federal court under CAFA? [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 8:22 am by Ashby Jones
Supreme Court rewrote part of the antitrust laws in a decision called Leegin Creative Leather Products v. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 10:50 am by Zietlow, Rebecca E.
Bowen School of Law is proud to present a symposium on the significance of Cooper v. [read post]
10 Nov 2014, 2:06 pm by Michael Cannon
In October 2013, the state of Indiana filed Indiana v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 9:09 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
"The case law uniformly refuses to define requests for access to federal or state public records under public-records laws (such as the federal Freedom of Information Act and state public records laws-including Wisconsin's) [...] [read post]
15 Feb 2011, 1:59 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Francis writes:   "To recover on a claim for an account stated under New York law, the plaintiff must show that: "'(1) an account was presented; (2) it was accepted as correct; and (3) [the] debtor promised to pay the amount stated.'" Camacho Mauro Mulholland LLP v. [read post]
19 Apr 2023, 6:13 pm by Josh Blackman
You cannot sue state court judges, and their clerks who simply apply the law. [read post]
22 Mar 2016, 1:00 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  As a result, they maintained that Tyson violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and Iowa state law by not paying them overtime when they worked more than 40 hours in a week, including donning and doffing time. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 8:57 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Criminal Opinions Body: Here is today's criminal law Appellate Court opinion:   AC31927 - State v. [read post]
20 Mar 2023, 12:15 am
Transcript, Strategic Funding Source Holdings LLC v. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 11:57 am by Patrick E. Knie
” The Court’s Decision The court affirmed the district court’s decision to the effect that South Carolina state law, along with its principle of equity, demand that the medical malpractice insurance coverage for the co-insureds under the policy remain in place. [read post]