Search for: "Scott v. Davis" Results 161 - 180 of 448
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Dec 2016, 4:34 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Employment Law Group, Scott Oswald takes a look at Tuesday’s opinion in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 1:01 am
Ibrahim, William & Mary Law School, on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Tags: Capital formation, Crowdfunding, Investor protection, IPOs, JOBS Act, SEC, SEC rulemaking, Securities regulation,Small firms, Tech companies ISS Proposes New 2017 Voting Policies Posted by Lyuba Goltser, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, on Wednesday, November 2, 2016 Tags: Boards of Directors, Charter & bylaws, Dual-class stock, Executive Compensation, Institutional Investors, IPOs,ISS, Proxy advisors, Proxy voting,… [read post]
5 Oct 2016, 4:46 am by Edith Roberts
Scott Walker of Wisconsin. [read post]
3 Oct 2016, 4:56 am by Edith Roberts
” At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy previews Murr v. [read post]
30 Sep 2016, 5:15 am by Edith Roberts
” Briefly: At Constitution Daily, Scott Bomboy previews Fry v. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 4:00 am by Administrator
’: Davis v. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 6:27 am
Loseman, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, on Saturday, July 30, 2016 Tags: Class actions, Delaware cases, Delaware law, Disclosure, Fraud-on-the-Market, Halliburton, Merger litigation,Omnicare v. [read post]
5 Aug 2016, 5:40 am by SHG
It is well-settled law that legislative enactments carry a strong presumption of constitutionality (People v Stuart, 100 NY2d 412, 422 [2003); People v Scott, 26 NY2d 286, 291 [1970)) Thus, a party seeking to find a statute unconstitutional bears a heavy burden and “must demonstrate, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’, that the statute suffers from ‘wholesale constitutional impairment'” (People v Davis, 13… [read post]
31 Jul 2016, 12:00 am by Smita Ghosh
In the London Review of Books, but behind a paywall, are a review of Entick v. [read post]
30 Jul 2016, 7:50 pm by The Blog Team
Scott, Coleman, Balogh & Scott LLP, San Diego, CA)   United States v. [read post]