Search for: "Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit" Results 1481 - 1500 of 4,876
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Feb 2017, 7:35 am by Morgan Hochheiser
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a bank’s relationship with a software services company, under which the software services company required its customers to use the bank for the depositary services ancillary to the software, did not violate anti-tying provisions of the federal Bank Holding Company Act, at 12 […] Morgan Hochheiser [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 8:23 pm by Kate Howard
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. [read post]
30 Jan 2017, 9:33 am by Morgan Hochheiser
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the presence of capital as one of six components in the FDIC’s CAMELS rating does not mean that the rating as a whole is committed to agency discretion for the purpose of 5 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Jan 2017, 9:57 am by Jason Shinn
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit decided against the EEOC’s Foxx decision and held Title VII did not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation). [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 7:41 am by Joy Waltemath
Asserting on appeal that the case was not moot, the EEOC argued the employee had a personal stake in the outcome because he was entitled to compensatory and punitive damages. [read post]
26 Jan 2017, 5:20 am by Jonathan H. Adler
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and Judge Raymond Kethledge of the U.S. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 8:18 pm by Kate Howard
Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 5th Circuits, but in contrast to the U.S. [read post]
25 Jan 2017, 8:12 am by Rebeca Lopez
If the Seventh Circuit recognizes a Title VII protection against sexual orientation discrimination, it will be the first federal Court of Appeals to do so. [read post]
20 Jan 2017, 6:10 am by Kate McGovern Tornone
The employer appealed to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the Board’s ruling. [read post]
19 Jan 2017, 8:09 am by Rebecca Tushnet
”  The court of appeals affirmed: “[w]hether we call the violation infringement, unfair competition or false designation of origin, the test is identical—is there a ‘likelihood of confusion? [read post]