Search for: "Robert F. Roberts, Petitioner, v. Merit Systems Protection Board, Respondent"
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
West of counsel), for respondents.Fisher, J.(1) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Robert J. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
West of counsel), for respondents.Fisher, J.(1) Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Robert J. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 4:50 am
Department of Defense raises the question of what the consequences are if an employee seeking review misses the deadline to file a petition seeking review of an Merit Systems Protection Board decision under 5 U.S.C. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:49 am
The question pre- sented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:49 am
The question pre- sented is whether the admissions systems used by Harvard College and UNC are lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Four- teenth Amendment. [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 5:31 am
(Domestic Relations Law § 76–f [2][a]-[h] ). [read post]
3 Feb 2021, 5:27 am
(Domestic Relations Law § 76–f [2][a]-[h] ). [read post]
10 Oct 2018, 11:28 am
(relisted after the October 5 conference) Returning Relists Quality Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 8:48 am
Petitioners originally brought action against the corporation to hold it accountable for the actions of its human agents, including the chairman, the board, and other high-ranking employees. [read post]
16 May 2011, 8:08 pm
In fact the Employee Polygraph Protection Act, 1998 was designed to restrict their use for employee screening. [read post]
14 Mar 2010, 10:47 pm
The settlement responds to a lawsuit brought by the Center for Biological Diversity that challenged EPA’s failure to recognize the impacts of acidification on coastal waters off the state of Washington. [read post]
12 Oct 2007, 2:28 pm
To the extent that the attorney general's brief addressed the point on changes in health insurance for judges, it did so because the petitioner judges addressed that cause of action against all respondents, including the Legislature and the governor. [read post]
12 Feb 2007, 8:09 am
NLRB v. [read post]