Search for: "State v. Pitt"
Results 101 - 120
of 303
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jan 2009, 12:57 pm
Last week, the online travel companies scored a big win when the Fourth Circuit affirmed the grant of a Motion to Dismiss in a case brought by Pitt County, in Pitt County v. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 2:22 pm
In United States of America v. [read post]
12 Aug 2011, 8:17 am
The other three circuits (Second, Third, and Fifth) have similarly held that a defendant cannot “pick off” lead plaintiffs with an offer of judgment in order to avoid a class action.In Pitts v. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 10:53 pm
In Business Roundtable v. [read post]
16 Jan 2019, 6:04 pm
But after the court of appeals held in State v. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 10:44 am
We previously reported on the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2007, 5:36 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2023, 4:31 am
Concur—Gische, J.P., Kern, Gesmer, Rodriguez, Pitt, JJ. [read post]
8 May 2020, 1:05 pm
Ruling on a Rule 48(a) motion in 2019 in United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2023, 9:19 am
State v. [read post]
30 Nov 2009, 5:25 am
Thus, “[w]hen athletes travel to states that do not impose the jock tax, the only players who can escape without having to pay any income taxes to either the nonresident state or their home state are those who reside in states without a state income tax. [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 3:06 pm
State v. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
Regular in-state purchases insufficient.Rawlins v. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 2:00 am
Chip Pitts is a lecturer in law at Stanford Law School. [read post]
19 Jun 2024, 8:22 am
Instead, we get this passage (with cites to Calise v. [read post]
19 Feb 2009, 4:35 am
Legal scholarship: First Statute of Westminster [1275] is cited in attorney's briefAmalfitano v Rosenberg, 2009 NY Slip Op 01069, Decided on February 12, 2009, Court of AppealsPrecedents and legislative history are frequently referred to in briefs and court decisions. [read post]
14 May 2011, 3:49 am
E.g., United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 5:45 am
The discretionary function exception is limited, the Court stated, to "basic governmental policy decisions," and they key issue is the difference between design & day-to-day operational decisions v. policy decisions. [read post]
21 Jan 2014, 7:20 am
Pitts). [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 9:27 am
Such was the case in Kerson v. [read post]
