Search for: "Industrial Association v. United States" Results 321 - 340 of 3,664
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Sep 2022, 7:59 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (EEOC v. [read post]
23 Sep 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Spending in election cycles by corporations and the ultrawealthy through so-called dark money groups has skyrocketed since the 2010 Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. [read post]
20 Sep 2022, 5:42 am by LII Team
Unsurprisingly, the highest-profile cases yielded the most pageviews, with tens of thousands of people reading our students’ explanations of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. [read post]
18 Sep 2022, 11:57 am by Chris Castle
As I told the Judges in my comment, I will focus on a few issues raised by A2IM regarding the CRB settlement process in general, the penny rate structure of the mechanical royalty system in the United States, and their proposal that mechanical licensing for physical configurations be handed over to the Mechanical Licensing Collective. [read post]
13 Sep 2022, 9:01 am by Jonathan Aronie and Ryan Roberts
., now applies only to the plaintiffs in this particular case: Seven states and the members of one industry association (Associated Builders and Contractors). [read post]
12 Sep 2022, 5:39 am by Jack Goldsmith
The Location Based Marketing Association's 2020 survey of 871 companies found that 95% of companies worldwide use location-based digital services. [read post]
10 Sep 2022, 6:25 am by Samuel Bray
President of the United States (August 26) is a major new case about national injunctions. [read post]
8 Sep 2022, 9:01 pm by Gary Gensler
Some in the crypto industry have called for greater “guidance” with respect to crypto tokens. [read post]
31 Aug 2022, 10:21 pm by Bennett Cyphers
It claims to process over 250 million devices per month within the United States. [read post]
  The Executive Order endorsed this approach, noting that “this order reaffirms that the United States retains the authority to challenge transactions whose previous consummation was in violation of the [antitrust laws]. [read post]