Sentences with phrase «federal claims involving»

Not exact matches

While Quebec, historically more likely to claim provincial independence on issues involving the federal government, leans toward the right of provincial governments to stop pipelines from being built through their jurisdiction, the rest of the country is more federally inclined.

«The IRS offers no explanation as to how the IRS can legitimately use most of these millions of records on hundreds of thousands of users; instead, it claims that as long as it has submitted a declaration from an IRS agent that the IRS «is conducting an investigation to determine the identity and correct federal income tax liabilities of United States persons who conducted transactions in a virtual currency during 2013 - 2015» the Court must find that the Summons does not involve an abuse of process.

In September 2013, JPMC paid $ 920 million in fines to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the United Kingdom's Financial Conduct Authority to settle claims of mismanagement with respect to its oversight of traders involved in the «London Whale» disaster which caused losses of approximately $ 6 billion.

Any claim based upon an act or omission of an employee of the Government, exercising due care, in the execution of a statute or regulation, whether or not such statute or regulation be valid, or based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a federal agency or an employee of the Government, whether or not the discretion involved be abused.

... The tax allegation involved claims that he failed to report as income on his federal tax return the rental income from a time - share unit (not a «posh» villa as often depicted) he owned in the Dominican Republican which was used to offset his mortgage payments.

Key state Democrats are finding it hard to believe the breathtaking claim by disgraced former Sen. Shirley Huntley's lawyer that Huntley provided federal investigators with information on supposed corruption involving Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who once served with Huntley in the Senate.

Prosecutors have decided not to file charges in an emergency food stamp fraud case involving nearly 200 state employees who claimed federal benefits in the aftermath of Tropical Storm Irene.

The bankruptcy scheme involved assertions Harris made in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in which she claimed she was receiving $ 1,200 a month in financial assistance from the landlord that she falsely claimed she was paying $ 1,550 a month in rent because her home had been damaged in the hurricane, federal authorities said.

The study, which analyzed 210 lawsuits involving First Amendment claims by professors and college instructors against public colleges and universities from 1964 - 2014, found that educational institutions won more than 73 percent of cases in federal and state courts.

They'd also claim that people who suggest using a diamond - tipped drill are involved in some federal - government - level conspiracy to leech money from the public through purposely falsified advice.

Characterizing its practice as a «general practice for a specialized clientele,» the firm provides legal advice and expertise to handle any and all needs of a school district, including fair dismissal personnel issues, allegations of employment discrimination and EEOC complaints, other personnel disputes, student discipline issues, student tribunal hearings, civil rights claims, personal injury actions, federal and state constitutional claims and other litigation, special education and other legal issues involving disabled students, contracts, leases and other business needs, policy and rule development, construction disputes, bond and SPLOST issues and other financial matters.

Providing a general law practice for a specialized clientele, Harben, Hartley & Hawkins meets all of the legal needs of school districts including: fair dismissal personnel issues, allegations of employment discrimination and EEOC complaints, other personnel disputes, student discipline issues, student tribunal hearings, civil rights claims, personal injury actions, federal and state constitutional claims and other litigation, special education and other legal issues involving disabled students, contracts, leases and other business needs, policy and rule development, construction disputes, bond and SPLOST issues and other financial matters.

«Unlike the debt ceiling standoff, with its competing claims of trillions in cuts, the FAA impasse involves only a tiny slice of the federal budget.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).

Connecticut v. AEP et al. involves a federal public nuisance claim filed by state attorney generals and conservation groups against utilities for their large contributions to climate change and resistance to lowering greenhouse gas emissions.

(The suits are referred to as a mass action because they involve multiple suits that raise similar claims, but they don't seek to be certified as a class action under the federal rules of civil procedure.)

Representing investment professionals against customer claims and counterclaims involving securities related liability under federal and state securities laws.

Some examples of personal injury cases involving a federal question are when a worker is injured offshore (Jones Act claims) or when a worker is injured while working for a railroad company (FELA claim).

On Tuesday, the federal government came to a settlement of $ 520 million with AstraZeneca, in a resolution of claims involving illegal marketing of the company's antipsychotic drug Seroquel.

The Houston and Dallas attorneys at Deans & Lyons, LLP have handled lawsuits involving claims of misappropriation of trade secrets in federal and state courts as well as before arbitration panels.

As lawyers who have handled extensive lawsuits involving claims of misappropriation of trade secrets (at both the state and federal level), our legal team stands ready to handle your case.

On the heels of three cases involving military members injured «off of the battlefield,» the United States Supreme Court passed the Feres Doctrine in 1950, making these individuals and their families unable to bring a claim against the federal government for such.

Our Labor and Employment attorneys regularly practice in all California State and Federal Courts, providing litigation representation in wage and hour matters, complex class actions, wrongful termination claims, discrimination and harassment disputes, non-solicitation and non-competition actions, enforcement of confidentiality agreements, and in unfair competition actions involving former employees.

Participated in the defense of a multi-national shipping company in a federal antitrust class action involving price - fixing claims in excess of one billion dollars

Represented large medical products manufacturer in complex federal court litigation involving «whistleblower» claim.

Upon his return north, he joined the New York office of Davis Polk & Wardwell as a lateral, during which he successfully prosecuted and first chaired a federal jury trial involving claims of excessive force under Section 1983 (Ruffin v. Fuller).

Your claim may involve numerous potentially liable parties, and if those parties are in different states, you may have to pursue your lawsuit in federal court.

Sell & Melton has handled aviation cases in state and federal courts involving General Aviation (Part 91), Commercial Operations and Air Carriers for Hire (Part 119 and Part 135), Repair Stations (Part 145), Fixed Base Operators, Student Pilots, Instructor Pilots, Aircraft Mechanics, Designated Airworthiness Representatives (DAR's), IFR / VFR issues, Pilot - in - Command issues, Crop Dusters, Helicopters / Rotorcraft, manufacturing and design defects, property damage claims, personal injury claims, and wrongful death claims.

As a lawyer at a large international law firm, he assisted corporate clients with investigations involving the False Claims Act, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and federal securities laws.

The case involved some 13 different counts including ERISA, federal and state RICO, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and numerous common law claims.

During his 21 - year legal career, Mr. Goldberg has litigated hundreds of cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States involving claims of retaliation, discrimination, wrongful termination, fraud, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of contract, as well as commercial contract disputes, civil RICO, ERISA, trade secrets and restrictive covenants, corporate governance disputes, minority shareholder disputes, partnership disputes, Madoff counseling and defense, advancement and indemnification proceedings, whistleblower actions (SOX and CEPA), executive compensation counseling, litigation, and arbitration, international litigation and arbitration, antitrust litigation and arbitration, products liability litigation, environmental and toxic tort litigation, and securities fraud.

She has extensive experience representing clients in both state and federal court for matters involving construction disputes, professional liability claims, including the defense of design professionals, contract disputes and commercial lending and banking disputes.

Ms. Field has experience defending financial institutions in complex litigation, consumer class actions and litigation involving fraud claims, federal consumer credit laws, unfair business practices and other commercial matters.

He has prepared many briefs to the United States Courts of Appeals, including to the Sixth Circuit in a contracts / agricultural law case, to the Federal Circuit in a gray market case, and many matters to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, involving claims for allowance / rejection of registration of trademarks.

[2] Prior to Gunn, state and federal courts applying this test frequently applied federal jurisdiction over state - law claims with embedded patent issues, including breach of contract claims involving patent licenses, defamation, and legal malpractice claims.

Additionally, Michael has prosecuted and defended claims on behalf of clients in state and federal trial and appellate courts involving fraudulent and preferential transfers, director and officer liability and insurance coverage claims, construction defects, construction claims for lost productivity and other claims for extra-contractual compensation, and the enforcement of construction liens and bonds.

Earlier this month, a federal court of appeals issued a written opinion in a workplace injury case involving claims made by an employee that the allegedly negligent party intentionally destroyed or lost evidence necessary to his case.

In addition, although the Gunn Court noted that state court interpretations of the Patent Act would not be binding on federal courts, [10] final state court judgments determining patent issues, such as validity, infringement, or claim construction, may well be binding on a patentee in subsequent litigation involving the same or related patents.

Section 1338 (a) requires federal courts to hear cases involving claims for relief under the Patent Act, including infringement and declaratory judgment actions.

Meanwhile, in a 2011 Texas federal court case involving environmental claims (Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas v. Federal Highway Administration), the court borrowed another Star Trek catchphrase, warning that: «Perhaps Homo sapiens will experience a Darwinian epiphany to take better care of their home before they returnfederal court case involving environmental claims (Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas v. Federal Highway Administration), the court borrowed another Star Trek catchphrase, warning that: «Perhaps Homo sapiens will experience a Darwinian epiphany to take better care of their home before they returnFederal Highway Administration), the court borrowed another Star Trek catchphrase, warning that: «Perhaps Homo sapiens will experience a Darwinian epiphany to take better care of their home before they return to it.

Long worked with nationally renowned trial attorney Herbert Hafif under whom he handled all phases of litigation and trial preparation work in cases involving catastrophic personal injury, complex business litigation, federal False Claim Act cases and insurance bad faith.

Co-wrote an appellate brief whereby the federal district court reversed a bankruptcy court and ruled that an architect could bring a third - party claim involving a large public project against a consultant who had previously obtained a discharge in bankruptcy.

He is an experienced trial attorney in both state and federal courts and has had numerous favorable outcomes in trials involving defense of personal injury, uninsured motorist claims, bad faith and municipal issues.

In addition to the largest award for its time ($ 60.8 million) in a Federal Tort Claims Act case, our law firm has handled many complex, high - profile claims involving brain injClaims Act case, our law firm has handled many complex, high - profile claims involving brain injclaims involving brain injuries.

Received favorable decision from New Jersey Federal District Court dismissing age and disability discrimination claims of former employees involving comments not previously addressed by the Federal Courts in the applicable Circuit.

Finally, deciding whether to bring your sexual harassment claim through the EEOC, federal court, or state court involves a number of subtle considerations.

These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture ofederal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture oFederal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.

Most recently, Mr. Pierce successfully represented a European company in a RICO action in federal court in Seattle, Washington involving claims in excess of $ 7 billion.

In this latest chapter of a long - running litigation involving the direct infringement of patent claims involving multiple actors, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently concluded that a defendant can be liable for direct infringement when it «conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit...

Mr. Birney also has a broad range of experience handling commercial litigation matters in state and federal courts, routinely representing businesses involved in contract disputes, fraudulent transfer, fraud, civil theft, and intercompany claims.