Search for: "United States v. Pennsylvania R. Co." Results 201 - 220 of 481
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Apr 2015, 7:00 am by Daniel E. Cummins
(United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied State Farm’s Motion In Limine to bifurcate a breach of contract and bad faith post-Koken lawsuit.).STATE COURT DECISIONS ON BIFURCATIONState Appellate Court DecisionStepanovich v. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 8:51 am by WIMS
Michael Conaway (R-TX), House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), and House Science, Space, and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) sent a letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy asking for documents to confirm whether or not the agency weighed the impact of the proposed "waters of the United States" (WOTUS) rule on farmers and … [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 10:39 am by Ron Coleman
United States Watch Co., 173 Mass. 85, 53 N.E. 141 (1899). [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 11:25 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
Irwin, CPA and Jacklin Associates, Inc.Case Number: 11-cv-04429 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania)Case Filed: July 11, 2011Qualifying Judgment/Order: December 19, 2014 1/27/2015 4/27/2015 2015-7 SEC v. [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 11:02 am
It originates from the rights of privacy afforded under the United States Constitution, but surprisingly, there is no federal right per se. [3]  [4] Rather, forty states recognize either a statutory or common law right of publicity, and fourteen extend its reach beyond a person’s death. [5] As a result, California’s right of publicity laws are different from New York, etc., which means that a lawsuit’s outcome is highly dependent on the… [read post]
20 Jan 2015, 12:00 am
It originates from the rights of privacy afforded under the United States Constitution, but surprisingly, there is no federal right per se. [3]  [4] Rather, forty states recognize either a statutory or common law right of publicity, and fourteen extend its reach beyond a person’s death. [5] As a result, California’s right of publicity laws are different from New York, etc., which means that a lawsuit’s outcome is highly dependent on the… [read post]
24 Dec 2014, 5:00 am
  In this case the United States Supreme Court held that a state attorney general action (really brought by contingent fee counsel proceeding in an AG’s name), ostensibly on behalf of all the citizens of a state, did not qualify as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) so as to allow removal to federal court. [read post]
28 Nov 2014, 9:56 am by Mary Jane Wilmoth
WrightCase number: 14-cv-01896 (United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania)Case filed: September 30, 2014Qualifying Judgment/Order: October 9, 2014 11/26/2014 02/24/2015 2014-133 SEC v. [read post]
19 Nov 2014, 5:39 am
In 2004, Ira Leesfield and Tom Scolaro tried the matter of Kemp v. [read post]