Search for: "DUKES v. PAGE" Results 121 - 140 of 382
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Jun 2023, 1:21 am by INFORRM
The full 742 page, 2618 paragraph judgment, Roberts-Smith v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Limited (No 41) [2023] FCA 555, was published  on 5 June 2023. [read post]
28 Mar 2013, 6:58 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Attempting To Circumvent Rule 23 Taking a page out of the EEOC’s playbook, the DFEH recently filed a motion in DFEH v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 6:59 am by James Bickford
  Today, the Court hears argument in McComish v. [read post]
30 Aug 2011, 12:44 pm by Kiera Flynn
Dukes, AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
19 May 2017, 6:00 am by David Hansen, JD
This post was co-authored by David Hansen and Brandon Butler and cross posted on The Taper and on Duke University Libraries’ Scholarly Communications Blog. [read post]
19 May 2017, 6:00 am by David Hansen, JD
This post was co-authored by David Hansen and Brandon Butler and cross posted on The Taper and on Duke University Libraries’ Scholarly Communications Blog. [read post]
19 May 2017, 6:00 am by David Hansen, JD
This post was co-authored by David Hansen and Brandon Butler and cross posted on The Taper and on Duke University Libraries’ Scholarly Communications Blog. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 8:47 am
On Tuesday, Sept. 11, however, the chancellor at UC Irvine, Michael V. [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 6:51 am by Kevin Smith, J.D.
 “Shrink wrap” licenses for software are a good example, where opening and using the product is a sufficient indication that the purchaser has accepted the terms of use (see ProCD, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 4:31 pm by INFORRM
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have announced their intention to launch legal action against the Mail on Sunday for publishing a private handwritten letter the Duchess had sent to her estranged father. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011)), and relates those opinions to four class-action cases on the Court's docket this Term: Comcast Corp. v. [read post]