Search for: "Ates v. State" Results 141 - 160 of 859
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Aug 2011, 5:15 am
In two recent decisions, the United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Seventh Circuit each split with the Second Circuit’s 2010 decision in Kiobel v. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 4:11 am
Ctr. of Queens, 2010 NY Slip Op 01938, Decided on March 9, 2010, ate Division, Second DepartmentGlenda A. [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 7:49 pm by Kenneth Anderson
by Kenneth Anderson I’ve now had a chance to read a little more closely the decision, majority and concurrence, in Kiobel v. [read post]
17 Dec 2008, 11:08 pm
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, decided Sarei v. [read post]
9 Jul 2011, 2:25 pm by Kenneth Anderson
On the one hand, I think the ATS needs to be sharply reined in - I agree more or less with Judge Kavanaugh's dissent in the DC Circuit panel, that the ATS properly applied is limited to conduct within the territorial United States. [read post]
24 Nov 2014, 1:10 pm by Daniel Nazer
We think Penn State’s patent would be found invalid under Alice v. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 4:37 pm by Roger Alford
Beth Stephens reminded the group that in the early days of the ATS plaintiffs almost always included pendant state laws claims in their complaints, and with recent setbacks they have returned to that practice, witness Doe v. [read post]
25 May 2009, 4:24 am
Wallace, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent.U.S. v. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 2:28 pm by Trey Childress
Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mammoth en banc opinion in the case of Sarei v. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 7:48 am by Anton Metlitsky
 He filed an amicus brief for the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and other organizations in support of neither party in Jesner v. [read post]
21 Oct 2013, 7:10 pm by Raffaela Wakeman
The government relies, as it did in the court below (and as the district court did), on the 1949 case of United States v. [read post]