Search for: "Fine v. Rubin" Results 1 - 20 of 50
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jun 2012, 12:19 pm
" The court concluded that Rubin & Rothman's failure to obtain the necessary documentary proof prior to commencing suit constituted frivolous conduct, and fined the firm $10,000. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 3:04 pm by Rick St. Hilaire
A Massachusetts federal court has ruled that the Museum of Fine Arts and Harvard University will not lose their collection of ancient Persian objects to eight plaintiffs injured in a 1997 terrorist bombing. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 10:16 am by Rick St. Hilaire
The First Circuit Court of Appeals on February 27, 2013 decided in favor of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (MFA) and Harvard’s museums in the case of Rubin v. [read post]
12 Sep 2018, 3:52 pm by Mitch Stoltz
The well-known case of Federal Communications Commission v. [read post]
18 Dec 2018, 4:04 am by Edith Roberts
Indiana, in which the court will decide whether the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause applies to the states, and Culbertson v. [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 2:57 pm
The court further found, however, that the broker's bank returned the substitute check to the broker, along with a debit advice, and fined the broker a returned check fee. [read post]
27 May 2015, 3:18 pm
  Related Issues: Computer Fraud And Abuse Act ReformRelated Cases: Rubin v. [read post]
10 Feb 2011, 2:02 am by sally
Supreme Court Brent London Borough Council and others v Risk Management Partners Ltd [2011] UKSC 7 (9 February 2011) Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2011] UKSC 6 (9 February 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) SS (Sri Lanka) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 76 (09 February 2011) Immingham Storage Company Ltd v Clear Plc [2011] EWCA Civ 89 (09 February 2011) Speed (A Minor) & Anor v London Borough of Waltham Forest… [read post]
3 Apr 2008, 5:54 pm
The conundrum is posed by the decision of a federal district court on March 31 in Rubin v. [read post]
22 Feb 2019, 4:03 am by Edith Roberts
At Bloomberg Law, Jordan Rubin and Kimberly Robinson report that in separate concurrences, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch supported “incorporating the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause to the states by way of the privileges or immunities clause instead of via the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause,” “a view of the Constitution that could be incredibly consequential were it to eventually find favor with a majority of justices. [read post]