Search for: "State Bank v. United States" Results 1801 - 1820 of 7,409
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jan 2011, 9:08 am
Justice Elena Kagan ruled against the “applicable” expense provision in her first decision for the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
7 Aug 2009, 12:52 am
§ 3600, the district court erred in concluding that two of ten prerequisites for DNA testing were not satisfied (including chain of custody sufficient to ensure the evidence was not altered in a way that would affect DNA testing and that the proposed DNA testing "may produce new material evidence" raising a reasonable probability the defendant did not commit the offense), in United States v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 5:56 pm
Pix credit here In a 53 page opinion, the United States District Court for Northern Alabama has ruled, in National Small Business Association v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 3:00 am by Louis M. Solomon
  Those nexus requirements are (a) “that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state”, or (b) “that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged is engaged in a… [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 10:31 am by Yvette Mabbun and Kelly Vazhappilly
Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), a 34-year old precedent that established a federal claim was not ripe until a state takings plaintiff exhausted its remedies under state law. [read post]
26 Feb 2019, 7:46 am by Beth Graham
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled a federal district court committed error when it ordered JPMorgan Chase Bank to notify thousands of current and former employees who signed an arbitration agreement waiving their right to engage in collective action against the company about a pending class action case. [read post]
28 Sep 2014, 11:17 am by John Bellinger
Australian National Bank, where the Supreme Court concluded that, in considering whether conduct that occurs both inside and outside the United States violates a statute without extraterritorial application, the courts should determine whether the conduct that is the “focus of congressional concern” occurred inside or outside the United States. [read post]