Search for: "United States v. General Foods Corp." Results 141 - 160 of 586
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 May 2014, 5:00 am
  Generally, government employees are immune from discovery in private litigation under rules first set out in United States ex rel. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 6:51 pm
Lambert spoke to the issue of division of authority over the machinery of politics in the United States; those insights and perspectives may be useful going forward in considering the division of authority among the political and judicial branches over governance modalities that the American founding generation might not have recognized. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am by Bexis
General Motors Corp., 575 P.2d 1162, 1168-69 (Cal. 1978); see State Dept. of Health Services v. [read post]
4 Feb 2007, 8:36 am
"]February 23, 2007 - 2:30 PM [PLI Institute, New York City]: Hormel Foods Corp. v. [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 4:40 am by Amy Howe
Commentary on Monday’s decision in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. [read post]
2 Sep 2014, 7:06 am by Joy Waltemath
In addition, the court found that determining whether a plaintiff was subject to the FLSA exemption would require individualized, rather than representative, proof (Stevens v HMSHost Corp, August 26, 2014, Glasser, I). [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 7:13 am
Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947))). [read post]
17 Apr 2018, 3:05 pm by Mark Walsh
Anyone who thought that just because one member of the Supreme Court had invited a test case about whether to overrule Quill Corp. v. [read post]
The possible consequences of such errors include (1) violating payor policies or requirements, leading to allegations of fraud, (2) Medicaid payment holds and referral to state Medicaid fraud control units (state attorneys general), and (3) liability for overpayments, including liability under the False Claims Act for improper retention of overpayments. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 1:12 pm by Bexis
Three days ago, the United States Supreme Court unanimously upheld the federally-backed regime in Cafastan against the latest insurgent assault in Standard Fire Insurance Company v. [read post]