Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
In a new lawsuit, Orange County alleges executives at a nonprofit took millions of tax dollars to feed the elderly and needy during the pandemic, then pocketed more than $10 million and bought ...
The Internet Archive is a non-profit organization and legally a library; it is governed by copyright laws specific to libraries. It is based in San Francisco , California ; the Archive maintains Open Library , a digital library index and lending system.
Bonta, 141 S.Ct. 2373 (2021), is a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the disclosure of donors to non-profit organizations. The case challenged California's requirement that non-profit organizations disclose the identity of their donors to the state's Attorney General as a precondition of soliciting donations in the state.
Many of these cases have lead to class action lawsuits and ... Free vehicle inspections are also being offered. ... Wells Fargo settled for a whopping $3.7 billion settlement — $1.7 billion ...
The U.S. Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1453, 1711–15, expanded federal subject-matter jurisdiction over many large class action lawsuits and mass actions in the United States. The bill was the first major piece of legislation of the second term of the Bush Administration.
Two separate lawsuits, including one from three authors represented by the Authors Guild and another by Association of American Publishers, were filed in 2005 charging Google with copyright infringement. Google worked with the litigants in both suits to develop a settlement agreement (the Google Book Search Settlement Agreement) that would have ...
A new joint investigation by American Banker and the San Antonio Current details the organization’s many problems and how the bank and insurer is currently “navigating a minefield of its own ...
Case history; Prior: 674 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2012); rehearing en banc denied, 688 F.3d 211 (5th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 1140 (2013).: Holding; A plaintiff establishes a violation of the retaliation provision of Title VII if the plaintiff proves that the defendant would not have made the adverse employment action but for the defendant's retaliatory motive.