Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Tellabs Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, 551 U.S. 308 (2007), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled on the interpretation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995's requirement of scienter in a civil action in apply to Tellabs and Makor Issues & Rights. [1]
The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104–67 (text), 109 Stat. 737 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 15 U.S.C.) ("PSLRA") implemented several substantive changes in the United States that have affected certain cases brought under the federal securities laws, including changes related to pleading, discovery, liability, class representation, and awards fees ...
Scalia filed a statement respecting the Court's denial of certiorari, commenting on the reliance by the Solicitor General's supplemental brief on United States v. Resendiz-Ponce , 549 U.S. 102 (2007) to argue that the omission of a necessary element from an indictment of fraud was not constitutionally deficient.
%PDF-1.4 %âãÏÓ 6 0 obj > endobj xref 6 120 0000000016 00000 n 0000003048 00000 n 0000003161 00000 n 0000003893 00000 n 0000004342 00000 n 0000004557 00000 n 0000004733 00000 n 0000005165 00000 n 0000005587 00000 n 0000005635 00000 n 0000006853 00000 n 0000007332 00000 n 0000008190 00000 n 0000008584 00000 n 0000009570 00000 n 0000010489 00000 n 0000011402 00000 n 0000011640 00000 n ...
Tellabs, Inc. is a global network technology company that provides networking and communications solutions to both private and governmental agencies. [2] The company offers a range of products and services, including optical transport systems, access systems, managed access solutions, and network management software.
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid: 333 Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. 334 Ex parte Curtis: 335 South Dakota v. Opperman: 336 United States v. Robel: 337 Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization: 338 Department of the Interior v. Klamath Water Users Protective Ass'n: 339
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Donate
In common law systems, one feature that distinguishes a trial de novo from an appellate proceeding is that new evidence may not ordinarily be presented in an appeal (though there are rare instances when it may be allowed—usually evidence that came to light only after the trial and could not, in all diligence, have been presented in the lower court).