Search for: "State v. Alabama Power Co." Results 181 - 200 of 296
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Jan 2014, 11:46 am by Ken White
United States, 267 U.S. 517, 537 (1925) (rights to notice of charges, assistance of counsel, summary process, and to present a defense); Gompers v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 6:42 am by Lyle Denniston
  The decision came in the case of Ford Motor Co. 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]
10 Oct 2013, 9:56 am by Gene Quinn
(d/b/a CoServ Electric); Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, and Mississippi Power Company, subsidiaries of Southern Company (NYSE: SO); Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. [read post]
3 Oct 2013, 7:57 am by Ronald Mann
The Court returns to that topic the first week of the term when it hears arguments in No. 12-929, Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 4:00 am by Devlin Hartline
Most, if not all, states have theft laws that substantially track the Model Penal Code. [read post]
18 Jan 2013, 2:06 pm by Bexis
  Unfortunately it appears that, instead of (or perhaps in addition to, given the recent election results) the Ten Commandments, there’s another commandment that the Alabama Supreme Court is following:  Thou Shalt (if you’re an Alabamian) Recover From An Out-Of-State Drug Company.While the Alabama Supreme Court certainly has the power to abandon the notion of manufacturer liability for defects in its products (unlike a federal court sitting… [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 3:04 am by SHG
” This conclusion was reaffirmed by the Court in District of Columbia v. [read post]
30 Oct 2012, 7:44 am by John Elwood
United States, 12-5614, in which the Fourth Circuit took the same view as the Fifth Circuit on the co-tenant consent question. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 5:36 am by Bexis
  Because of this independent basis for jurisdiction, there was no need for opt-out rights as otherwise would be the case under Phillips Petroleum Co. v. [read post]