Search for: "State of Minnesota v. District Court" Results 1221 - 1240 of 1,678
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2011, 6:24 am by McNabb Associates, P.C.
He is credited with having stabilized the work of the Commission during the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 6:24 am by McNabb Associates, P.C.
He is credited with having stabilized the work of the Commission during the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
20 Jun 2011, 4:05 am by Howard Friedman
 Now, according to Minn Post last week, TiZA has filed suit in federal district court against IRUSA and the state Commissioner of Education. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 5:08 pm by Greg Mersol
  In a decision authored by Justice Kagan, all of the Justices agreed that the district court had exceeded its authority in enjoining the state court action. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 3:13 am by Greg Mersol
  Later, the court also certified the case as a Rule 23 class action under the laws of the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota, and denied the defendant's motion to decertify the conditionally certified FLSA class. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 10:22 pm
S. 1, 17 (1966); Minnesota Mining & Mfg. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm by Bexis
Jan. 12, 1987), federal district courts held that the rule precluded pharmacist liability. [read post]
31 May 2011, 6:37 pm by Daniel Low
The Parties agree that the United States District Court for Minnesota shall retain jurisdiction over the Action to enforce this Agreement. [read post]
31 May 2011, 11:38 am
In 2002, the Southern District of Indiana declared the '288 patent invalid in Cardiac Pacemaker, Inc. v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 12:39 pm
” Moreover, Minnesota Hockey, the state arm of the national hockey governing board, and the local district were incapable of conspiring.The May 12 decision, Minnesota Made Hockey, Inc. v. [read post]
8 May 2011, 8:07 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 47007 (D MN, May 2, 2011), a Minnesota federal district court dismissed a Muslim inmate's complaints that he was not permitted to pray outside of his cell, that religious groups are permitted only one special holiday meal per year, that he could wear only state-issued headwear rather than his kufi outside his cell and the chapel, that an outside volunteer must be present at all religious services and that religious services are cancelled on public… [read post]