Search for: "DUKES v. STATE"
Results 1361 - 1380
of 2,251
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2012, 7:30 am
Dukes). [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 9:21 am
Dukes, et al., AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
4 Jan 2012, 8:25 am
Dukes, 131 S. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 7:02 pm
New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 178 (Nov. 24, 2009). [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 5:37 am
Posted by Greg MersolIn Dukes v. [read post]
3 Jan 2012, 3:50 am
That decision offered an interesting discussion of choice of law, and of the notion of commonality after Dukes v. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 5:38 pm
The Court, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. [read post]
30 Dec 2011, 7:35 am
Ross, BP v. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 11:43 am
Under executive order of March 29th 1989 of unelected Grand Duke Jean, the right to correspondence of detainees is severely restricted. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 11:43 am
Under executive order of March 29th 1989 of unelected Grand Duke Jean, the right to correspondence of detainees is severely restricted. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 5:27 am
Dukes. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 1:59 pm
Dukes, 131 S. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 8:20 am
LG Display Co., No. 11-255 (4th Cir.): These cases involve whether a lawsuit filed by a state attorney general qualifies as a “mass action” under CAFA and issues regarding minimal diversity under CAFA where a state is a plaintiff. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 6:48 am
” This ruling suggests a moderate approach to the predominance analysis required by Dukes v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 10:19 am
Dukes case cited Nagareda’s scholarship. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 7:55 am
Shelter Capital and Ascentive v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 5:39 pm
Dukes, and AT&T v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 1:31 pm
” The translation of policy to actual trial procedure will however take some time, as exemplified by United States v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 11:51 am
In keeping with the growing trend among wage and hour certification decisions, the district court cited Dukes v. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 7:08 pm
Supreme Court's holding in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. [read post]