Search for: "United States v. General Petroleum Corporation" Results 81 - 100 of 258
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Sep 2015, 5:08 pm by Kevin LaCroix
  First, in a July 8, 2015 decision in Acevedo v. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 6:24 pm by Sophia Cope
Royal Dutch Petroleum (2013) that if a plaintiff wants to hold a defendant liable for human rights violations that occurred in another country under the ATS, the plaintiff must show that the claim “touches and concerns” the United States. [read post]
29 Jul 2015, 2:05 am by Anthony B. Cavender
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in the case of United States v. [read post]
19 May 2015, 9:05 am by WIMS
 Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Town of Barnstable v. [read post]
15 May 2015, 9:10 am by WIMS
 Appeals Court Environmental Decisions <> Resource Investments v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 5:15 am by Beth Van Schaack
Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2013), another corporate complicity case involving the extractive industries in Nigeria. [read post]
8 Feb 2015, 5:54 am by Barry Sookman
It went on to rule that the Federal Court had jurisdiction simpliciter over the Internet Archive in a copyright infringement case because it archived a file located on a Canadian website and made it accessible to Canadians over the Internet from a web site located in the United States. [read post]
5 Feb 2015, 6:11 pm by Nadia Kayyali
The Court said that for a U.S. court to have jurisdiction to hear these ATS claims, the claims must “touch and concern” the United States. [read post]
25 Jan 2015, 2:50 pm by Barry Sookman
Canada-Nova-Scotia Offshore Petroleum Board, 2014 FC 450 Denturist Group of Ontario v. [read post]
26 Aug 2014, 10:32 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
  We argued that the United States Supreme Court has held that the citizenship of a limited partnership for purposes of diversity jurisdiction is determined according to the citizenship of its limited and general partners, citing Carden v. [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 9:35 am
The European Union and the United States voted against the resolution, which they thought counter-productive and polarizing; both stated that they would not participate in the treaty negotiating process.[5] Japan and South Korea also voted no. [read post]