enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. The 'Texas two-step' is back as J&J tries to shed talc ... - AOL

    www.aol.com/finance/texas-two-step-back-j...

    The "Texas two-step" strategy takes advantage of state laws that allow for the transfer of liabilities through a so-called divisive merger, which is a way to separate a company's operations into ...

  3. Why J&J's 'Texas-two step' setback could make it harder for ...

    www.aol.com/finance/why-j-js-texas-two-151757327...

    A new legal setback for Johnson & Johnson could make it more difficult for 3M and other big companies to use a controversial bankruptcy tactic to shed costly product-liability lawsuits.A US ...

  4. Matthew Kacsmaryk - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Kacsmaryk

    By March 2023, the Texas Attorney General's Office under Ken Paxton filed 28 lawsuits against the Biden administration in federal district courts in Texas; of those, 18 were filed in single-judge divisions, including Kacsmaryk's division and a single-judge division held by another Trump appointee, Drew B. Tipton. [34]

  5. More than 2,800 Texans are getting abortion pills through the mail from out-of-state every month, prompting a lawsuit and legislation seeking to end the practice.

  6. Zurawski v. State of Texas - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zurawski_v._State_of_Texas

    At the time, First Assistant Attorney General of Texas Brent Webster decried Mangrum's decision as "an activist Austin judge’s attempt to override Texas abortion laws." [8] [10] On November 28, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Zurawski. By this time, the number of plaintiffs in the case had increased to 22: 20 women ...

  7. Discover the latest breaking news in the U.S. and around the world — politics, weather, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, sports and much more.

  8. DeVillier v. Texas - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devillier_v._Texas

    Texas, 601 U.S. 285 (2024), was a case that the Supreme Court of the United States decided on April 16, 2024. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] The case dealt with the Supreme Court's takings clause jurisprudence . Because the case touched on whether or not the 5th Amendment is self-executing, the case had implications for Trump v.

  9. X's new terms of service push lawsuits to Texas courts, allow ...

    www.aol.com/xs-terms-push-lawsuits-texas...

    For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us