Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar , 570 U.S. 338 (2013), was a Supreme Court of the United States case involving the standard of proof required for a retaliation claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . [ 1 ]
35 U.S.C. § 271(b) creates a type of indirect infringement described as "active inducement of infringement," while 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) creates liability for those who have contributed to the infringement of a patent. Both types of indirect infringement can only occur when there has actually been a direct infringement of the patent. [5]
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said Allstate created the "world's largest driving behavior database," with data on more than 45 million Americans, by paying mobile app developers millions of ...
Texas law included remedies against retaliation for whistleblowers, but no known U.S. state had whistleblower laws that addressed appropriate prosecutorial conduct. According to the Texas Nurses Association, "No one ever imagined that a nurse would be criminally prosecuted for reporting a patient care concern to a licensing agency."
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
A subsequent remedial measure is an improvement, repair, or safety measure made after an injury has occurred. FRE 407 [dead link ] prohibits the admission of evidence of subsequent remedial measures to show defendant's (1) negligence; (2) culpable conduct; (3) a defect in defendant's product; (4) defect in the design of defendant's product; or (5) the need for a warning or instruction.
Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) Any state statute which bans cross burning on the basis that it constitutes prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. However, states may still ban cross burning with intent to intimidate due to the act’s uniquely hateful history. McConnell v.
Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "[a]lthough an affidavit supporting a search warrant may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information and some ...