Search for: "Files v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
Results 1001 - 1020
of 3,765
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Mar 2015, 8:20 am
The case, RILR v. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 9:35 am
This is an unusual qui tam action, United States of America, Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. [read post]
7 Oct 2014, 10:42 am
In addition, several amicus briefs in support of granting certiorari have been filed in Spokeo, which can be found here (by Pacific Legal Foundation), here (by ACA International), here (by Trans Union LLC), here (by Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America), here (by eBay Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google, Inc. and Yahoo! [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 7:15 am
In Rodriguez v. [read post]
4 Sep 2010, 4:44 am
" United States of America v. [read post]
21 Jul 2022, 2:50 pm
United States v. [read post]
22 May 2024, 1:33 pm
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., and BANC OF AMERICA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, Appellants, v. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 5:37 am
The parties engaged some of the most powerful firms and lawyers in the state, and multiple amicus briefs were filed. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 11:27 am
In 2005, the Court granted certiorari on related issues in Laboratory Corp. of America v. [read post]
13 Apr 2023, 11:57 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 11:26 am
However, at least two pending cases should clarify whether and when employers must provide seats – a case against Bank of America that is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, and a case against K-Mart that is now being tried in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. [read post]
16 Jan 2015, 2:51 pm
According to Sixth Circuit, the man-woman marriage laws in these states did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment—even in the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. [read post]
20 Aug 2008, 12:19 pm
Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 4:21 am
Though the new law doesn't apply to the case, the opinion is in line with the new law.The court said that the unambiguous language of NAFTA provides that only the United States may challenge a state law as conflicting with the terms of the agreement between it, Mexico and Canada. [read post]
26 Oct 2007, 1:04 am
United States
Subscription Required
U.S. [read post]
6 Mar 2021, 10:41 am
(“Liqwd”) and Olaplex LLC filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that L’Oréal USA, Inc., L’Oréal USA Products, Inc., L’Oréal USA S/D, Inc., and Redken 5th Avenue NYC, L.L.C. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 10:00 am
A copy of United States of America v. [read post]
15 Dec 2014, 8:29 am
Mozes v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 10:17 am
MBNA America Bank, N.A. [read post]
27 Jun 2011, 8:41 am
And in United States v. [read post]
