Ad
related to: ave vs pajaro full case docket code 1 20
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The full case name should try to include the first and last names of all parties and whatever other information is included in the full name of the case [Bowers v. Hardwick]. For example, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General of Georgia v. Michael Hardwick, et al.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Cite the Docket to a US Federal District Court Case, and optionally link to Recap free archive and/or PACER non-free current Docket. Template parameters [Edit template data] Parameter Description Type Status Lead Plaintiff plaintiff Short name for Lead Plaintiff Example CREW String required Lead Defendant defendant Short name for Lead Defendant Example Trump String required Case Name case ...
Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County (Docket number: Civ. A. No. 1333; Case citation: 103 F. Supp. 337 (1952)) was one of the five cases combined into Brown v. Board of Education, the famous case in which the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1954, officially overturned racial segregation in U.S. public schools. The Davis case was the only ...
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (Docket 23-975) is a pending United States Supreme Court case about the scope of environmental review required for government agencies by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Gonzalez v. Google LLC, 598 U.S. 617 (2023), was a case at the Supreme Court of the United States which dealt with the question of whether or not recommender systems are covered by liability exemptions under section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, which was established by section 509 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, for Internet service providers (ISPs) in dealing with terrorism ...
J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 564 U.S. 873 (2011), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that a court may not exercise jurisdiction over a defendant that has not purposefully availed itself of doing business in the jurisdiction or placed goods in the stream of commerce in the expectation they would be purchased in the jurisdiction.
United States v. Google Inc., No. 3:12-cv-04177 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2012), is a case in which the United States District Court for the Northern District of California approved a stipulated order for a permanent injunction and a $22.5 million civil penalty judgment, the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has ever won in history. [1]