Xxxxxxx v Sample Clauses

Xxxxxxx v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 558 F.3d 1112, 1116-17 (9th Cir. 2009) (noting that Xxx concluded “discrimination against LEP individuals was discrimination based on national origin in violation of Title VI”); Xxxxxxx at 977-78 (Title VI intent claim properly alleged when a federally funded housing project failed to provide language assistance services); United States v.

Xxxxxxx v. Google LLC, No. 2021-CH-01460 (Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook Cnty.), and Xxxxxxx v. Google LLC, No. 1:20-cv-04454 (N.D. Ill.).

Xxxxxxx v. Fru-Con, Inc., 498 F.3d 734, 745–746 (7th Cir. 2007). Thus, “the court construes the evidence strictly in favor of the party who prevailed before the jury and examines the evidence only to determine whether the jury's verdict could reasonably be based on that evidence.” Xxxxxxxxxx x. Xxxx County, 689 F.3d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 2012) (citing Tart v. Ill. Power Co., 366 F.3d 461, 464 (7th Cir. 2004)).

Xxxxxxx v. Proskauer Rose LLP, No. 2012-CI-02425 (Tex., Bexar Cnty. [166th Dist.]) (dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution on May 20, 2014)

Xxxxxxx v. P.- Corporate Services - 100% Social Membership, Westward Ho Country Club & 50% of the difference between the Social and Executive Golf membership.

Xxxxxxx v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 18 (1947). 8 Xxxxx, 465 U.S. at 673 9 Board of Educ. of the Westside Cmty. Sch. x. Xxxxxxx, 000 X.X. 000, 250 (1990).

Xxxxxxx v. United Mexican States concerned the purchase of postal money orders by the applicant during the 1910-1920 Mexican Revolution, which Mexico later refused to pay, contending that they were issued by an illegal administration.111 The administration in question was that of Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, who seized power in a coup d’état in February 1913, but gradually lost control over large parts of the country in the following months, and was eventually forced to resign in July 1914.112 The Claims Commission concluded that the Xxxxxx regime had indeed come into power illegally, but went on to hold that a distinction must be drawn between the ‘personal’ and ‘unpersonal’ [sic] acts of such an admin- istration. ‘The greater part of governmental machinery in every modern country is not affected by changes in the higher administrative officers’, the Commission pointed out, arguing that as a result, the state cannot deny responsibility in connection with ‘unpersonal’ acts, i.e. ‘purely government routine having no connection with or relation to the individuals adminis- tering the Government for the time being’, such as registration of births, deaths and marriages, taxation, and ‘even many rulings by the police’.113 By contrast, individuals’ ‘personal’ interactions with the government are acts ‘in support of the particular agencies administering the government for the time being’, such as ‘voluntary undertakings to provide a revolutionary administration with money or arms or munitions and the like.’114 Finding that the issuance of postal money orders was an unpersonal act, the Claims Commission held that Mexico was bound by the Xxxxxx regime’s conduct, and therefore liable to pay the applicant.115 At this juncture, a careful reader might point out that – having seized power through a coup – the Xxxxxx administration initially controlled all (or most) of Mexico. Accordingly, it would be better classified as a general de facto government during that early period, only turning into a local one as it began to lose control over much of the country.116 But as the Commis- sion explained in an obiter dictum, this would only be relevant inasmuch as the Xxxxxx regime’s personal acts were concerned.117 In respect of this latter category, the award upheld the traditional rule whereby general

Xxxxxxx v. New Jersey (1967)

Xxxxxxx v. San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System, San Diego County Superior Court Case No. GIC 810837 (“Gleason II” ); and

Xxxxxxx v. South State Insurance Co., SC 1986: (1) Facts: fraud as to the contents of the house prevents recovery for the content; but insured can still recover for the house and living expenses because the fraud did not effect those items. (2) In the absence of fraud or any act condemned by public policy, the contract is divisible, and recovery may be had for the loss of property not affected by the particular warranty broken. (3) Fraud only voids the provisions tainted by the fraud. (4) Forfeitures of insurance contracts are not favored. (5) Insurer must establish a causative link between a policy exclusion and a loss before recovery may be defeated. (6) Majority of jurisdictions holds that any fraud or misrepresentation as to any portion of the property under an insurance policy voids the entire policy. SC does not adopt this rule.