Search for: "State v. Loss"
Results 981 - 1000
of 17,462
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Oct 2016, 4:07 pm
In a decision handed down on 24 June 2016 (TLT and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2217 (QB)) Mitting J ordered the Home Office to pay six claimants a combined total of £39,500 for the misuse of private information and breaches of the Data Protection Act (“DPA”) 1998 arising from the publication online of a spreadsheet. [read post]
4 Aug 2008, 8:22 pm
" where there is no physical taking of the property, no enchantment is possible under United States v. [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 7:52 pm
There's an interesting new decision from the appellate division of the NJ Superior Court, Hoffman v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 6:17 am
” In applying he law on “embedded” federal questions, the District Court followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 1:25 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 6:37 am
A.D. 2009(, that interpreted the "ascertainable loss" requirement of the state's consumer fraud act ("CFA") as requiring the purportedly aggrieved consumer to invoke a money-back guarantee before bringing suit. [read post]
1 May 2008, 10:02 am
SENTENCINGUnited States v. [read post]
6 Jun 2008, 1:12 pm
Another "loss" case. [read post]
22 Feb 2008, 5:52 am
In a recent decision from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Heights at Issaquah Ridge Owners Association v. [read post]
7 Jun 2014, 4:30 am
For example, in Amish Connection, Inc. v. [read post]
20 Feb 2008, 7:03 am
In LaRue v. [read post]
6 Mar 2017, 7:11 am
State v. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 10:06 am
Into the thicket of Washington's economic loss doctrine now comes the 9th Circuit in this recent case certifying a question of state law to the Supreme Court, specifically: May party A (here, SMS, whose rights are asserted in subrogation by [carrier]), who has a contractual right to operate commercially and extensively on property owned by non-party B (here, the City of Seattle), sue party C (here, LTK) in tort for damage to that property, when A (SMS) and C (LTK) are not in… [read post]
15 May 2014, 10:52 pm
An amici brief was filed by a group of law professors and practitioners in support of three defendants in United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 5:00 am
Consequently, any inability by Finelite to state a claim for restitution does not constitute a bar to Finelite's seeking injunctive relief. [read post]
31 May 2012, 6:00 am
That's what happened in Wallace v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 10:57 am
" What's puzzling, then is that having said that MBIA doesn't need to prove loss causation, the court states "MBIA must then prove that it was damaged as the direct result of the material misrepresentations. [read post]
14 Sep 2009, 6:36 am
NO-FAULT - MANDAMUS RELIEF - CPLR ARTICLE 78 Matter of Okslen Acupuncture P.C. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 5:05 pm
See Cicairos v. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 8:29 am
City v Maryland Cas. [read post]
