Search for: "IN RE CERTIFICATION OF QUESTION OF STATE LAW"
Results 101 - 120
of 2,696
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Aug 2007, 6:05 am
The Tenth Circuit avoided addressing the merits of this law, but denied a challenge to the law by several out-of-state students based on the lack of any effect on them if the law was successfully overturned based on standing.In other words, the Court told the out-of-state students, "You're not the right ones to challenge this law. [read post]
24 Feb 2014, 6:16 pm
Testimony of the experts on German law revealed that the concept of domicile in Germany is comparable to the concept of domicile in the United States. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 10:42 am
What to Expect When You’re Expecting LEED LitigationDoes Stricter Decertification Mean More “Leedigation? [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 8:26 pm
If you have additional questions please visit our bankruptcy lawyer in Washington state homepage. [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 7:19 am
Question: Does the process result in permanent lawful status for beneficiaries? [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 5:02 am
The reasoning was put best by the court in that old standby, In re Norplant, “[i]f the doctrine would be avoided by casting what is essentially a failure to warn claim under a different cause of action such as violation of the [state law consumer protection act] or a claim for misrepresentation, then the doctrine would be rendered meaningless. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 2:38 pm
" Watch the video to learn more.For more information about how medical malpractice and accident cases work in the State of New York, I encourage you to explore my popular website http://www.oginski-law.com.If you have specific legal questions, I urge you to pick up the phone and call me since I can answer your legal questions at 516-487-8207. [read post]
26 Dec 2006, 4:38 am
BNA's United States Law Week reported in Vol. 75, No. 23 (Dec. 19, 2006) on the case Miles v. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 8:13 am
LLR, Inc., 61 F.4th 1053, 1065 (9th Cir. 2023); In re State Farm Fire & Cas. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 12:34 pm
" Rather, the Court should limit itself to determining "whether plaintiffs have asserted common questions of fact or law. [read post]
21 Aug 2020, 12:30 pm
Certification (and) Marks – Understanding Usage and Practices Among Standards Organizations, Brad Biddle, Arizona State University, Jorge Contreras, University of Utah, and Vigdis Bronder, Biddle Law Would expect to find certification marks going along w/standards orgs. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 3:45 am
While defendants cannot thwart certification simply by tossing out imagined or slight variances in state laws, it is the plaintiffs' burden to demonstrate the common issues of law. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 1:35 pm
The post OHA Reminder: Don’t ignore Program Examination Questions from SBA . . . or Else first appeared on SmallGovCon - Government Contracts Law Blog. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 11:33 am
(Your communications counsel would be a good place to start, if you have any questions.) [read post]
5 Feb 2014, 9:35 am
(Your communications counsel would be a good place to start, if you have any questions.) [read post]
19 Jul 2009, 8:55 pm
The Ninth Circuit explained at page 8332: “The question here is whether the district court abused its discretion in finding Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement was met based on Wells Fargo’s internal policy of treating all HMCs as exempt from state and federal overtime laws. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 10:08 am
Judge Carl West denied the plaintiffs’ class certification motion on the familiar ground that common questions did not predominate. [read post]
25 Feb 2011, 12:34 pm
Jordan: question really relates to whether facts raise actual legal liability under relevant law. [read post]
6 Dec 2006, 9:30 am
" The very question presented asked whether the class certification question can be answered without delving into the merits of the underlying case, and the Second Circuit seems to answer that a court must delve into those merits, and then does. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 6:34 am
Finding no state law interpretation of R.C. 1301.401, and believing it to be dispositive of the case, the bankruptcy judge certified the two questions set out above. [read post]
