Search for: "Miller v. District Court" Results 141 - 160 of 3,207
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Mar 2023, 9:01 pm by renholding
Rio Tinto provided much needed clarity for district courts within the Second Circuit. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 4:00 am by Administrator
District Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that, as a matter of first impression, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) does not invalidate a binding arbitration agreement if the plaintiff fails to plead a plausible sexual harassment claim. [read post]
26 Mar 2023, 8:00 am by Kevin LaCroix
” In concluding that Section 533 precludes coverage for the malicious prosecution claim against the law firm, the appellate court relied heavily on Downey Venture v. [read post]
14 Mar 2023, 11:48 pm by Florian Mueller
Oct. 3, 2016) (dismissing antitrust challenge to merger of Anheuser-Busch InBev and SAB Miller), aff’d sub nom. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 1:41 am by INFORRM
In the build up to the preliminary hearing, the defendants applied to the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the DCSDNY) on 6 December 2022 for an order requiring HSBC Bank USA NA (HSBC USA) to produce two very broad categories of banking documents relating to Mr Soriano’s companies in reliance on 28 USC §1782 (the 1782 application). [read post]
4 Mar 2023, 4:38 am by SHG
” In Miller v Pate, the Supreme Court wrote, “In argument at the close of the habeas corpus hearing, counsel for the State contended that ‘[e]verybody’ at the trial had known that the shorts were stained with paint. [read post]
1 Mar 2023, 6:09 am by Dennis Crouch
  by Jeffrey Lefstin Not too long after the Supreme Court decided Mayo v. [read post]
26 Feb 2023, 1:21 pm by David Adelstein
A recent Miller Act payment bond decision out of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. f/u/b/o Civil Construction, LLC v. [read post]
20 Feb 2023, 7:47 pm by Dennis Crouch
  Here, the court (in my view) mis-cited ChargePoint, Inc. v. [read post]