Search for: "General Motors Corp. v. District of Columbia" Results 1 - 20 of 51
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Dec 2015, 2:00 am by Anthony B. Cavender
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) rejected a challenge to 2014 EPA rules regulating emission testing requirements for new motor vehicles, 40 C.F.R. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 1:13 pm by Greg Mersol
General Motors Corp., 133 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 1998) (en banc), the Sixth Circuit similarly rejected class-wide claims for retiree medical benefits by a class of salaried employees, even though it has freely found for unionized employees asserting similar claims involving a collective bargaining agreement. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
General Motors Corp., 65 P.3d 956, 968-69 (Ariz. [read post]
20 Sep 2011, 2:26 pm by Don T. Hibner, Jr.
Noerr Motor Freight, 365 U.S. 127 (1961) ("Noerr") and Professional Real Estate Investors v. [read post]
30 Nov 2015, 1:25 pm
Backus Hospital, 864 A.2d 1, 18 (Conn. 2005) (rejecting lost chance doctrine altogether).District of Columbia:  Grant v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 6:41 am
District Court for the Eastern District of California 2010); Yokohama Tire Corp. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
  As to them, however, we adhere to our general rule that we don’t do the other side’s research for them.AlabamaThe Alabama Supreme Court held, in E.R. [read post]
31 Jul 2008, 5:30 pm
See generally Bexis' book §2.04[1] at footnote 17 (collecting state-of-the-art citations from drug and device cases in 35 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico).So that's one thing - one pretty big thing - that we think is wrong with the anti-preemption rationale in Tucker II. [read post]
16 May 2011, 3:14 am by Sean Wajert
Apr. 21, 2010); In re General Motors Corp. [read post]
29 Jun 2012, 5:47 am by David Cheifetz
If the donor had been negligent, that generally would not have provided the CRCS a defence. [read post]
9 Nov 2015, 7:09 am
App. 2006) (approving jury instruction based on Restatement §908).District of Columbia:  Destefano v. [read post]