Search for: "United States v. Marcotte"
Results 1 - 20
of 46
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2010, 9:47 am
Thomas Porteous, Jr., while a Federal judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with the trust and confidence placed in him as a Federal judge, as follows: Judge Porteous, while presiding as a United States district judge in Lifemark Hospitals of Louisiana, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2023, 1:45 pm
While courts generally recognize and enforce contractual agreements by a party to consent to jurisdiction, mere registration of an out-of-state business to do business in a state historically has not been recognized as creating the necessary “substantial minimum contacts” that the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution generally requires exist to provide the general personal jurisdiction that must exist for a state court to… [read post]
2 Mar 2016, 5:00 pm
Employer and union sponsored group health plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and their insurers are not required to comply with a Vermont state law that requires health insurers and certain other parties to report payments relating to health care claims and other information relating to health care services to a state agency for compilation in an all-inclusive health care database, according to the United States Supreme… [read post]
7 Apr 2007, 12:33 am
United States v. [read post]
12 May 2014, 4:49 pm
” Citing among other things to the Supreme Court’s recent decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. [read post]
24 Jan 2007, 6:12 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Nov 2018, 10:56 am
In its ruling in Mount Lemmon Fire District v. [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 11:54 pm
Quander, 440 F.3d 489, 496 (D.C.Cir.2006); United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:25 pm
Since the Supreme Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution entitled same-sex couples to equal treatment with married heterosexual couples under federal law in United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2020, 12:16 pm
Humphrey … with intent to subvert the authority of the Government of the United States, to hinder and delay the due execution of the laws of the United States, and to oppress and injure citizens of the United States, did unlawfully act as judge of an illegally constituted tribunal within said State, called the district court of the Confederate States of America, and as judge of said tribunal … then and there… [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 11:51 am
See Comit[eacute] de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas (CATA) v. [read post]
2 May 2022, 2:12 pm
Emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce the disability discrimination and accommodation requirements of either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehab Act”) or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) according to the May 1, 2022 United States Supreme Court ruling in Cummings v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 5:16 pm
©2013 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. [read post]
30 Jun 2015, 10:53 am
With the Obama Administration construing the United States Supreme Court’s King v. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
In Texas v. [read post]
6 Apr 2023, 9:55 am
Unit B 1981). [read post]
8 Jul 2014, 11:51 am
Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL) June 27, 2014 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which would amend the definition of spouse under the current Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) regulations in light of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 3:42 pm
” The procedural changes to NLRB election procedures implemented by the quickie election rule place employers at a significant disadvantage when faced with a union demand for an election, Incorporating most of the procedures contained in a 2011 NLRB proposal previously invalidated by the District of Columbia’s district court in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2010, 8:07 am
General Motors Corp., 575 P.2d 1162, 1168-69 (Cal. 1978); see State Dept. of Health Services v. [read post]
