Search for: "Edison v. United States" Results 81 - 100 of 276
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jun 2015, 4:08 pm by Lax & Neville LLP
On May 18, 2015, The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ (“9th Circuit”) ruling in Tibble et al. v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 9:00 am by Amy Howe
United States ex rel. [read post]
22 May 2015, 6:10 am by John McGowan
On May 18, 2015, the United State Supreme Court, by a 9-0 vote, vacated and remanded the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Tibble, et al. v. [read post]
21 May 2015, 12:50 am
International Armed Conflict Edison González-Lapeyre, Un nouvel envisagement sur la piraterie maritime James L. [read post]
19 May 2015, 11:28 am by Rich McHugh
By Rich McHugh The United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a unanimous opinion in Tibble et al. v. [read post]
19 May 2015, 6:45 am by Amy Howe
Edison International. [read post]
4 May 2015, 10:18 am by Robert D. Durham
In Consolidated Edison Co. of New York v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 9:20 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
Div. 2015)           Following the recent opinion in State v. [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 6:13 pm by Oyez Project
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. [read post]
23 Dec 2014, 5:31 am by Lyle Denniston
United States — federal court authority to require the government to transfer guns seized from an individual without a legal right to have a gun Tibble v. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 7:13 am by Epstein Becker Green
The Solicitor General, in an amicus brief, argued on behalf of the United States that trustees of ERISA plans owed a continuing duty of prudence, which they breach by failing to research fund options and offer available lower-cost institutional-class investments during the six-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 7:13 am by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
The Solicitor General, in an amicus brief, argued on behalf of the United States that trustees of ERISA plans owed a continuing duty of prudence, which they breach by failing to research fund options and offer available lower-cost institutional-class investments during the six-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. [read post]