Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The doctrine that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be construed strictly does not demand that the act of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. at L. 531, chap. 196, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3174), compelling interstate carriers to adopt automatic couplers, in which there is an undoubted intention to make some change in the existing law ...
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in case citations, 8th Cir.) is a United States federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following United States district courts: Eastern District of Arkansas
Argument: Oral argument: Case history; Prior: Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 765 F.3d 791 (8th Cir. 2014); cert. granted, 135 S. Ct. 2806 (2015). Holding; The district court did not err in certifying and maintaining a class of employees who allege that the employer’s failure to pay them for donning and doffing protective gear violate the Fair Labor Standards Act, notwithstanding the ...
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the Missouri law violated a section of the U.S. Constitution known as the supremacy clause, which asserts that federal law takes precedence over state laws.
On Monday, a three-judge panel with the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that determined that citizens and groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the ...
On July 1, 1987, Reagan nominated Beam to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated by Judge Donald Roe Ross. Beam was confirmed by the Senate on November 6, 1987, and received his commission on November 9, 1987. He assumed senior status on February 1, 2001. [2]
From 2000 to 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit had the highest rate of non-publication (92%), and more than 85% of the decisions in the 3rd Circuit, 5th Circuit, 9th Circuit, and 11th Circuit went unpublished. [6] Depublication is the power of a court to make a previously published order or opinion unpublished.
Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific-Atlanta, 552 U.S. 148 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the scope of liability of secondary actors, such as lawyers and accountants, for securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.