Search for: "North Dakota v. Martin" Results 21 - 40 of 53
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Apr 2015, 8:30 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 40614 (D ND, March 30, 2015), a North Dakota federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendation (2015 U.S. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
  By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and if so how it is applied, careful… [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 11:06 am by Benjamin Bissell
At last count, Republicans grabbed 7 formerly-Democratic Senate seats in North Carolina, West Virginia, Arkansas, Iowa, South Dakota, Montana and Colorado, for a total of 52. [read post]
17 Oct 2013, 5:00 am by Bexis
  We found a lot of cases – at least something useful from 42 jurisdictions:  all except Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.As alluded to earlier, plaintiffs sometimes try to overcome inconvenient facts about a failure to read warnings with quirky arguments that the defendant should have communicated in a different fashion. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 10:39 am by Geoffrey Rapp
Shaft, Implementing the settlement of State of North Dakota v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 2:29 pm by Glenn Reynolds
North Dakota (full disclosure: I consulted for the winning side) — having to comply with vast numbers of state (and local) sales tax rates and, worse, classification schemes, is a burden on interstate commerce. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 12:46 pm by Bexis
Baxter Healthcare Corp., 764 N.E.2d 35, 42 (Ill. 2002) (applied to medical device); Martin v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am by Bexis
North America, Inc., 971 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2009), but dismissed the appeal as improvidently granted after it turned out that the defendant was an intermediate seller, not a true manufacturer (that makes a difference in the Third Restatement, but it’s not important here).Finally, the Third Circuit got fed up with the issue remaining undecided, and after trying unsuccessfully to get the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to accept a certified question, took the metaphorical bull by the horns and… [read post]