Search for: "Reading v. Attorney General" Results 9921 - 9940 of 14,178
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2013, 11:33 am by Lyle Denniston
Cuccinelli II — the state attorney general who is the GOP candidate for governor. [read post]
8 Aug 2013, 8:30 am by Joy Waltemath
On August 2, a federal judge in Iowa ordered the EEOC to pay $4.69 million in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by trucking giant CRST in defending against the agency’s sweeping sexual harassment suit, due in part to the agency’s failure to investigate, issue a reasonable cause determination, and conciliate the claims of a number of putative class members (EEOC v CRST Van Expedited, Inc, August 1, 2013, Reade, L). [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 6:44 pm by Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Careful interviews with attorneys about patent trial strategy could also be used to understand the root causes of the asymmetry. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 10:39 am by Eric S. Solotoff
    *Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net The unreported (non-precedential) case of Burkett v. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 10:39 am by Eric S. Solotoff
    *Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net The unreported (non-precedential) case of Burkett v. [read post]
6 Aug 2013, 9:30 am
Section 5 of the Act amends section 195(1) of the Code, requiring the federal Minister of Public Safety and the Attorney General of each province to present a public report to include interceptions under section 184.4. [read post]
5 Aug 2013, 11:00 am by Paul Rosenzweig
United States, 425 U.S. 391, 397-98 (1976) the Fifth Amendment does not prevent compelling information from a suspect’s attorney because compelling the attorney to divulge information does not compel the suspect to do anything. [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 9:00 am by Raffaela Wakeman
Read about the city of Deer Trail, Colorado. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 9:01 pm by Julie Hilden
Supreme Court recently declined to grant review in the very interesting case of Saint John’s Church in the Wilderness v. [read post]
1 Aug 2013, 7:50 pm by Adam Levitin
Its basic point is that requiring arbitration is more favorable to weaker (read poorer) consumers than allowing in-court litigation because all litigation has a regressive distributional effect:  the well-to-do are more likely to litigate and gain the benefits of litigation, while the costs are borne more generally by all consumers. [read post]