Search for: "CURTIS, INC. v. UNITED STATES" Results 1 - 20 of 114
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Jul 2023, 1:42 pm by NARF
Oklahoma; Post-Conviction Relief; Section 14 of the Curtis Act) United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2023, 4:33 pm by Barry Barnett
A change to venue law frees state attorneys-general from involuntary transfers of antitrust actions from their home states to distant forums handling multi-district litigation involving the same subject matter. [read post]
29 Nov 2022, 5:00 pm
Manual Workers Paid Less Than Minimum WageIn early October, a proposed class action was filed in Brooklyn federal court by Jacori Curtis, an employee of an Emirates Airline affiliate -- DNATA Aviation USA, Inc. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 3:23 am by jonathanturley
CNN, No. 0:22-cv-61842, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 5:00 am by Kevin MacNeill and Preston Brasch
Emory Healthcare Inc., the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Emory Healthcare Inc. [read post]
22 Aug 2022, 6:44 pm by Dennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch For our patent law course today, the students read the Justice O’Connor unanimous opinion in  Bonito Boats, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Jul 2022, 2:56 pm by INFORRM
Quebecor Media Inc. et al, 2022 ONSC 3749. [read post]
4 Mar 2021, 5:01 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
An excerpt: When acting within its territorial boundaries and with respect to internal matters, an Indian Nation retains the sovereignty it enjoyed prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution except to the extent that its sovereignty has been abrogated or curtailed by Congress (see Montana v United States, 450 US 544, 564; United States v Kagama, 118 US 375, 381-382; Cayuga Nation v Campbell, 34… [read post]
10 Aug 2020, 2:24 am by Schachtman
In addition to the temporal disconnect, the majority gave virtually no consideration to the three-way relationship between the product supplier defendants, the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs’ employer, the United States government. [read post]