Search for: "Taylor v. United States" Results 1041 - 1060 of 1,443
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
Unlike Europe’s comprehensive privacy law, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the United States only has a conglomeration of laws that target specific types of data. [read post]
5 Jul 2015, 4:38 pm by INFORRM
United States Hanna Bouveng has been awarded $18 million damages against her former employer Benjamin Wey by a US federal jury. [read post]
28 Feb 2021, 4:37 pm by INFORRM
Malay Mail  reports that the Federal Court in a majority decision has held that Perkasa and its then president Datuk Ibrahim Ali have to pay RM150,000 in damages to former Penang chief minister Lim Guan Eng over the group’s defamatory statements published in October 2011 United States Singer Cardi B has filed a motion to dismiss a defamation case against herself and sister Hennessy Carolina after they were named in a lawsuit back in September, following a beach… [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 6:19 am by Mark S. Humphreys
This is illustrated in a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals case styled, Ellis v. [read post]
19 Nov 2024, 8:33 am by Sasha Volokh
United States, No. 23-402) didn't consider the Appointments Clause at all, so it would not be a good vehicle for a grant of certiorari. [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 12:25 pm by Wolfgang Demino
 JOAN BAYEv.MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.Civil Action No. 17-4789.United States District Court, E.D. [read post]
12 Nov 2017, 12:25 pm by Wolfgang Demino
 JOAN BAYEv.MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., ET AL.Civil Action No. 17-4789.United States District Court, E.D. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 2:54 am by Andrew Trask
He covered everything from the basics of Rule 23 to how to use the often-overlooked Taylor v. [read post]
13 Jul 2008, 4:50 am
" The law could be upheld only if the state could show it served a significant local interest that could not be furthered by a non-discriminatory law--this Oklahoma could not show.Maine v Taylor (1986) is a rare example of a Supeme Court decision upholding a state statute that discriminated against out-of-state commerce. [read post]