Search for: "Cates v. State" Results 1 - 20 of 110
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Apr 2011, 1:46 pm by Conor McEvily
Today’s petition of the day is: Title: Cate v. [read post]
9 May 2011, 4:23 am by Hunton & Williams LLP
On April 26, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sorrell v. [read post]
30 Jun 2016, 12:25 pm
Relatively harsh words from the Ninth Circuit this morning.The majority -- Judge Wardlaw, joined by Judge Silverman -- believe that there was a plea deal (and that the state breached it). [read post]
9 May 2011, 9:23 am by Hunton & Williams LLP
On April 26, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Sorrell v. [read post]
11 Sep 2018, 2:22 pm
  And reviewed some of the -- get this -- over 250 published opinions in California state and federal court which mention that, yeah, it's definitely a derogatory term. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 11:00 am
Then don't read this case.The California Gambling Control Commission is responsible, inter alia, for collecting revenue from the various Indian tribes that maintain casinos in the state. [read post]
31 May 2022, 2:02 pm by Eugene Volokh
Ct. 1988) (stating that an injunction can be issued to bar "commercial disparagement" following "a long standing and persistent pattern by defendants of defaming plaintiff or of disparaging its products or services"); see also Reschke v. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 9:08 am by Federalist Society
The issue is whether SLUSA preempts a class action in which the plaintiff-victims allege “(1) that they “purchase[d]” uncovered securities (certifi­cates of deposit that [we]re not traded on any national ex­change), but (2) that the defendants falsely told the victims that the uncovered securities were backed by covered securities. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 9:08 am by Federalist Society
The issue is whether SLUSA preempts a class action in which the plaintiff-victims allege “(1) that they “purchase[d]” uncovered securities (certifi­cates of deposit that [we]re not traded on any national ex­change), but (2) that the defendants falsely told the victims that the uncovered securities were backed by covered securities. [read post]
21 Feb 2012, 10:07 pm
Supreme Court reversed the state high court.West Virginia's prohibition against predispute agreements to arbitrate personal-injury or wrongful-death claims against nursing homes is a cate- gorical rule prohibiting arbitration of a particular type of claim, and that rule is contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA. [read post]