Search for: "United States v. Vigil" Results 181 - 200 of 547
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Aug 2018, 7:31 am by Doorey
In the United States, the termination of the plaintiff in circumstances such as this would almost certainly be a violation of Section 7 of the NLRA. [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 4:07 pm by Rev. Dr. Cari Jackson
ShareThis article is part of a symposium on the court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 2:35 am by Jack Pringle
  Thereafter, in support of its subsequent Motion to Compel Arbitration, Toyota contended that it had preserved the right to compel arbitration as it awaited the United States Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 11:16 am by Wally Zimolong
The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has been asked to review OSHA’s twenty year old “controlling employer” policy. [read post]
16 Feb 2012, 11:04 am
Although the taxing power may not be used to impose “punishment for an unlawful act,” United States v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 3:29 pm by Ken White
The Fifth Circuit is the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 6:54 am by Patti Spencer
" These Elizabethan "poor laws" became the model for the United States’ legislation on the same subject. [read post]
3 Mar 2022, 10:10 am by Eugene Volokh
"While we believe strongly in the warm friendship and cultural exchange that has long existed between the artists and artistic institutions of Russia and the United States," Mr. [read post]
Apple Inc., the United States District Court for the Southern District of California recently granted plaintiff Taction Technology, Inc. [read post]
8 Mar 2013, 9:00 am by LTA-Editor
The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington held, in part, that equitable estoppel barred Bumper Boy from arguing that the UltraSmart design infringed on either patent. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 1:59 am by gmlevine
He says, “[e]ven the renown of Complainant and its marks does not confer a worldwide monopoly on the right to use the word APPLE or a variant in a domain name, under the Policy or under United States trademark law. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 2:00 pm by John Bellinger
”   In closing, the panel — almost as an afterthought, and with scant analysis — slams the door on two other defense arguments that have been litigated at length in other courts: that the ATS does not apply to activities outside the United States and that ATS plaintiffs must first exhaust local remedies. [read post]