Search for: "State v. Electric City Supply Company"
Results 1 - 20
of 122
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2023, 9:00 am
Union Electric Company, the City of St. [read post]
8 Mar 2022, 1:37 pm
Industry trade groups have argued that the extension of the tariffs threaten President Biden’s goal to decarbonize the U.S. electricity sector by 2035[10] as solar companies have relied on cheap imports to compete with energy produced from fossil fuels. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 5:14 am
Here’s an overview of the Missouri Supreme Court’s 26-page opinion in Arbor Investtment Company LLC v. [read post]
19 May 2011, 11:04 am
Howard Matz rejected defendants' motion to dismiss on this same issue, noting that "[u]nder the Mexican Constitution, the supply of electricity is solely a government function," and that Comisión Federal de Electricidad ("CFE"), was an electric utility company owned by the government of Mexico that was responsible for supplying electricity to all of Mexico other than Mexico City. [read post]
9 Sep 2022, 6:05 am
In Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company v. [read post]
6 Sep 2011, 2:04 pm
Public health crises that once were common because the Chicago River emptied the City's sewage into the lake -- the City's freshwater supply ? [read post]
6 Jan 2013, 1:52 pm
In Great American Insurance Company v. [read post]
11 May 2011, 9:41 am
Howard Matz rejected the arguments raised by defendants, noting that "[u]nder the Mexican Constitution, the supply of electricity is solely a government function," and that CFE was an electric utility company owned by the government of Mexico that was responsible for supplying electricity to all of Mexico other than Mexico City. [read post]
11 May 2011, 9:41 am
Howard Matz rejected the arguments raised by defendants, noting that "[u]nder the Mexican Constitution, the supply of electricity is solely a government function," and that CFE was an electric utility company owned by the government of Mexico that was responsible for supplying electricity to all of Mexico other than Mexico City. [read post]
21 Apr 2011, 7:49 am
Summary of presentation: On Tuesday, April 19, 2011, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in American Electric Power, et al v Connecticut, et al (10-174) ("AEP"), a case filed by eight states, one city and three land trusts seeking an order requiring five of the nation's largest coal-fired power producers to reduce their emissions for at least a decade. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 3:19 pm
It stated that, in City of Anaheim v. [read post]
27 Feb 2008, 1:17 pm
("United"), the company for whom Adem drove the cab. [read post]
31 May 2010, 7:09 am
Saporito saw this disaster coming and argued to the court that the government’s position was absurd because it would make power companies (who supply electricity necessary to run the plating line) and cities (who provide water pipes necessary to allow the process to work) equally liable. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 8:52 am
<> Black Warrior Riverkeeper, Inc. v. [read post]
15 May 2015, 9:10 am
Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Resource Investments v. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 8:12 am
In January 2010, the utility company terminated the gas and electric service to the premises, which caused the pipes to freeze. [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 1:43 am
In the Privy Council on Tuesday 1 April 2014 is the Antiguan appeal of Landmark Ltd & Anor v American International Bank (In receivership), a dispute concerning electricity supplied to a shopping mall. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 11:59 am
McDaid v. [read post]
14 Apr 2010, 11:27 am
Specifically, the guidance addresses four areas that may trigger disclosure obligations under existing SEC requirements: 1. whether the impact of proposed or existing climate change laws and regulations in the U.S. and other countries may materially affect the company’s financial condition or operations; whether international climate change accords or treaties will impact its business; whether a company is likely to face indirect opportunities or risks arising out of legal,… [read post]
25 May 2022, 9:01 pm
Securities Litigation, 768 F.3d 1046 (9th Cir. 2014) (violations of Section 303 do not give rise to private right of action under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5) with Stratte-McClure v. [read post]
