Search for: "State of Delaware v. Barnett." Results 1 - 20 of 32
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jan 2011, 3:59 am by Randy Barnett
Barnett hopes to do with his modest proposal known as the Repeal Amendment. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Gubler (Arizona State University), on Monday, April 8, 2024 Tags: corporate boards, corporate law, directors, Fiduciary duties, Shareholder value, Stakeholders Delaware Supreme Court Holds Entire Fairness Applicable to All Conflicted Controller Transactions Posted by Gregory V. [read post]
12 Apr 2024, 6:30 am
Gubler (Arizona State University), on Monday, April 8, 2024 Tags: corporate boards, corporate law, directors, Fiduciary duties, Shareholder value, Stakeholders Delaware Supreme Court Holds Entire Fairness Applicable to All Conflicted Controller Transactions Posted by Gregory V. [read post]
7 Mar 2013, 7:15 am by Cormac Early
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Randy Barnett has posted a transcript of Senator Rand Paul’s comments on Lochner v. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 7:50 am
The term “power of judicial review” was not used in Marbury v. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 12:58 pm by NCC Staff
Delaware’s Weird—and Constitutionally Suspect—Approach to Judicial Independence By Garrett Epps, Professor of Law, University of Baltimore School of Law Garrett Epps discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case, Carney v. [read post]
17 Dec 2017, 3:28 pm by Wolfgang Demino
And the credit card account at issue in Madden was presumably one of those, because the 2d Circuit opinion in Madden v Midland mentions a notice-of-change-in-terms that changed the choice-of-law state to Delaware, FIA's home state.Exemplar of Bank of America N.A. [read post]
17 Dec 2017, 3:28 pm by Wolfgang Demino
And the credit card account at issue in Madden was presumably one of those, because the opinion mentions a notice-of-change-in-terms that changed the choice of law state to Delaware. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am by Bexis
  We, of course think that's wrong under Erie - where the default should be, if a form of liability hasn't been recognized by a state court, then it should be dismissed by a federal court applying that state's law in a diversity action.ConnecticutIn Gerrity v. [read post]