Search for: "U. S. v. Held" Results 1 - 20 of 5,057
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Mar 2024, 12:47 pm
The court held that Section 3 did notapply because the Presidency, which Section 3 does notmention by name, is not an “office . . . under the United3Cite as: 601 U. [read post]
25 May 2012, 11:08 am by Kurt J. Schafers
"  This means that a broker-dealer cannot be held liable for defamation for anything it puts on the U-5, even if it knows the statements were false or misleading. [read post]
23 Sep 2016, 9:44 am by H. Scott Leviant
U-Haul Co. of California (Sept. 16, 2016), the Second Appellate District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial Court's ruling that U-Haul could not assert an arbitration agreement to compel the plaintiffs to individually arbitrate whether they qualified as “aggrieved employee[s],” to determine in arbitration whether they had standing to pursue a PAGA claim.The Court agreed with Williams v. [read post]
26 Jun 2018, 6:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
Supreme Court dramatically altered the country’s E-commerce landscape with its decision in South Dakota v Wayfair, 585 U. [read post]