Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In the legal system in the United States, In re is used to indicate that a judicial proceeding may not have formally designated adverse parties or is otherwise uncontested. In re is an alternative to the more typical adversarial form of case designation, which names each case as "Plaintiff v. (versus) Defendant", as in Roe v. Wade or Miranda v ...
The settlement provides for the cash equivalent of a 10 basis-point reduction (0.1 percent) of swipe fees charged to merchants for a period of eight months. This eight-month period would probably begin in the middle of 2013. The total value of the settlement will be about $7.25 billion.
In re: Don McGahn (also: Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn II ; U.S. House Judiciary Committee v. Donald F. McGahn ) is a U.S. constitutional case lawsuit (1:19-cv-02379) filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the House Judiciary Committee to compel the ...
In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009) [1] is an early 2009 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, affirming a rejection of business method claims by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
In re Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), [1] is a civil action that came before the Delaware Court of Chancery. It is an important case in United States corporate law and discusses a director's duty of care in the oversight context.
In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001, 310 F.3d 717 (2002), is a per curiam decision by the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review in which it reviewed restrictions that were placed upon a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) on May 17, 2002.
By Bart H. Meijer and Charlotte Van Campenhout. AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -The Netherlands commemorated on Wednesday the 298 victims of flight MH17 that was shot down over Ukraine 10 years ago with a ...
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and ...