Search for: "State v. Alabama Power Co." Results 141 - 160 of 293
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Dec 2018, 9:01 pm by Michael C. Dorf
Indeed, in such a world, we might worry about state prosecutions of a president or other high-ranking federal officials even apart from questions of double jeopardy and the pardon power. [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 4:13 am by Edith Roberts
The first was United States v. [read post]
14 Mar 2011, 8:12 pm by Christa Culver
Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.Docket: 10-770Issue(s): Whether, contrary to this Court's decision in KSR International Co. v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 7:21 am by Andrew Hamm
The specific structure of the national government, the powers assigned to the executive, the Congress and the judiciary, and the relationship between the states and the federal government were all “experiments. [read post]
20 Jun 2017, 4:29 am by Edith Roberts
And in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 12:40 pm by Amy Howe
Suggesting that it “would be an understatement in the extreme to call the Supreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 11:42 am
Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007) prohibited Kolter from supporting its removal notice with documents that had not been received from the plaintiffs. [read post]
5 Jun 2019, 9:58 am by Amy Howe
When Wilkes and Russell sued the tribe and the casino in state court, the Alabama Supreme Court allowed the lawsuit to go forward, holding that nonmembers can sue tribes for their injuries. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 9:00 pm by Joanna L. Grossman and Mary Ziegler
Ohio, Alabama, Iowa, and Oklahoma announced similar bans.The impact of these bans is self-evident. [read post]
Alabama Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2007), the Eleventh Circuit averred that CAFA’s reference to ‘actions,’ as opposed to ‘claims,’ suggested that removal under CAFA was broadly inclusive, and permitting removal over the suit as a whole, inclusive of the pre-CAFA claims, was consistent with congressional intent. [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]