Search for: "Card v. State of Michigan" Results 161 - 180 of 260
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Aug 2012, 6:01 am
This fall, the United States Supreme Court will reconsider the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision in Grutter v. [read post]
14 Aug 2012, 6:55 pm by Jason Shinn
Also, for more information about differences between state and federal law when it comes to reverse race discrimination claims see Changing Gears in Reverse Discrimination Claims: Differences under Michigan and Federal Law. [read post]
5 Jun 2012, 5:21 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 After your registration card has been issued by the State of Michigan, be sure to stay within the strict limits of the Act.Good luck out there.www.clarkstonlegal.cominfo@clarkstonlegal.com [read post]
23 May 2012, 4:00 pm by John Elwood
  Jennings was convicted in Texas state courts of debit card abuse for teasing a Discover Card about being a loser. [read post]
11 May 2012, 3:44 pm by Steve Honig
  In the last Bush Administration, the President’s legal office stated that the Federal government could share enforcement of Federal policy with the States, and that the States therefore could have concurrent authority. [read post]
4 May 2012, 8:38 am by Lorene Park
In another example, a Michigan federal court dismissed an employee’s FMLA claim because Michigan does not recognize same-sex marriage and her claim was based on her employer’s failure to approve leave to care for her same-sex partner who had brain cancer (Copeland v Mid-Michigan Regional Medical Center, ED Mich 2012). [read post]
4 May 2012, 7:31 am by Robert Chesney
Gottlieb notified Agent Azad and Assistant United States Attorney Jeffrey Knox that he was representing defendant and asked that his client not be interviewed unless he was present. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 9:05 pm by admin
In 1968, the Supreme Court decided United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 7:49 pm by Alex Hunt
The state Supreme Court upheld the sentence, concluding that the Supreme Court’s more recent decision in Graham v. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 7:32 am by Angelo A. Paparelli
United States, 260 U.S. 178, 190 (1922) (finding that Japanese immigrant was not eligible for naturalization); United States v. [read post]