Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., 426 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2005): Trademark and trade dress. United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency, 458 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2006): Transport of large amounts of currency concealed in an unusual manner could be taken as evidence that the currency was connected with drug trafficking.
With the passage of Republic Act Number 9282 (R.A. 9282) Archived June 21, 2019, at the Wayback Machine on April 23, 2004, the CTA became an appellate Court, equal in rank to the Court of Appeals. Under Section 1 of the new law, the Court is headed by a Presiding Justice and assisted by five (5) Associate Justices.
An anti-money laundering law called the Corporate Transparency Act, or CTA, is now back in action after a Dec. 23 court ruling that will require millions of small business owners to register with ...
United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court examined whether a trial court acted appropriately when it issued a restraining order to prevent a labor strike organized by coal miners. [1]
The US Supreme Court held that the tax was lawful. Holmes J dissented on reasoning, not result, joined by Brandeis J.. The plaintiff's reliance is upon Allgeyer v.Louisiana, 165 U. S. 578, 17 S. Ct. 427, 41 L. Ed. 832, in which it was held that a fine could not be imposed by the State for sending a notice similar to the present to an insurance company out of the State.
Created Date: 8/30/2012 4:52:52 PM
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is investigating reports of alleged engine failures in GM's 6.2-liter L87 V-8, an engine used in a wide variety of trucks and SUVs.
United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that in order for a United States district court to have pendent jurisdiction over a state-law cause of action, state and federal claims must arise from the same "common nucleus of operative fact" and the plaintiff must expect to try them all at once. [1]