Search for: "State of New Jersey v. United States" Results 1921 - 1940 of 3,526
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jan 2009, 2:16 pm
Opinion below (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division) Petition for certiorari Brief in opposition __________________ Docket: 08-655 Title: Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
SchwartzThe lawyer’s view of constitutional history is reminiscent of the Manhattanite’s mental map of the United States, as rendered in Saul Steinberg’s iconic New Yorker cover: 9th and 10th Avenues, the Hudson River, New Jersey, and then a patch of largely open space dotted with “Chicago,” “Texas,” “Los Angeles,” and a couple of mountains before the “Pacific Ocean. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 3:16 am by PaulKostro
New Jersey adheres to the first-filed rule, and ordinarily will stay or dismiss a civil action in deference to the jurisdiction, whether in the United States or overseas, in which the substantially similar litigation was first filed. [read post]
24 Apr 2010, 12:08 pm by INFORRM
In the case of Too Much Media v Hale the New Jersey ruled this week that blogger Shellee Hale was not a journalist entitled to protect confidential sources and newsgathering information under the State’s “shield law”. [read post]
11 Sep 2012, 9:25 am by PaulKostro
Kostro, Esq., an attorney/lawyer/mediator in Linden, Union County, New Jersey. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 6:22 pm by Andy Dorchak
Florence sued jail officials, arguing that “the searches were unreasonable because he was being held for failure to pay a fine, which is not a crime in New Jersey. [read post]
15 May 2011, 12:04 am
Supreme Court issued its judgment in Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. [read post]
9 Jan 2015, 9:49 pm
    Procedural HistoryContent Extraction and Transmission LLC and its principals (collectively, CET) appeal from the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), in which the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the claims of CET’s asserted patents are invalid as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. [read post]