Search for: "State v. Clayton" Results 401 - 420 of 1,098
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Mar 2010, 2:08 pm
Text of the complaint and the proposed consent decree in U.S. v. [read post]
9 Jul 2007, 11:27 am
Once substantive discovery does commence, I would expect it to proceed much faster than it has, for example, in the USA v. [read post]
14 Nov 2007, 9:43 am
California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519 (1983).[6] Blue Shield v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 3:41 pm by Colin O'Keefe
We're about a week out from the Penn State scandal really breaking wide open and I continue to be impressed by the level of coverage put forth on that subject by the attorneys on the LexBlog Network. [read post]
27 Jul 2013, 3:40 pm by Stephen Bilkis
For a variety of reasons, such directness of relationship is one of the essential elements of Clayton Act causation. [read post]
21 Jul 2017, 6:04 am
Pastuszenski, Goodwin Procter LLP, on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 Tags: California, Class actions, Jurisdiction, New York, PSLRA, Securities Act, Securities litigation, Shareholder suits, SLUSA, State law, Supreme Court CalPERS v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 12:41 pm
—————– Violators would forfeit their 180-day exclusivity period: Section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(D)(i)(V)) is amended by inserting `section 29 of the Clayton Act or’ after `that the agreement has violated’. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 7:12 am by DONALD SCARINCI
§ 145 encompasses the personnel expenses the United States Patent and Trademark Office incurs when its employees, including attorneys, defend the agency in Section 145 litigation.Ramos v. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 12:32 pm by Lovechilde
  Indeed, Andrew Cohen notes, just  few months ago, Justice Scalia, during oral argument in Hall v. [read post]
27 Jul 2020, 7:04 am by Kalvis Golde
Clayton County, Georgia, 6-3) Blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind deportation protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. [read post]
27 Apr 2023, 3:40 am by Jon Hyman
Clayton County, the United States Supreme Court held that treating individuals differently because of their transgender status violates Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination. [read post]