Search for: "State v. White"
Results 2001 - 2020
of 11,929
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Sep 2011, 6:18 am
Those cases are consolidated in State of Mississippi v. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 7:52 am
Sure issued his decision in Regan v. [read post]
13 Jul 2023, 8:00 am
United States, 599 U.S. ____ (2023). [read post]
20 Feb 2024, 5:01 am
Boone Baxter's Report and Recommendation in Greig v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 3:25 pm
State v. [read post]
15 Mar 2019, 6:40 am
"The case is Zervos v. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 12:51 pm
And Republican Party v. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 8:13 am
Phillips v. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 4:10 am
In Walker v. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:57 am
Supreme Court’s June 2010 ruling in Morrison v. [read post]
16 Aug 2012, 6:40 am
The Order is based on the entry of a permanent injunction against Rizvi in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 5:30 am
White v. [read post]
8 Aug 2008, 11:11 pm
In United States v. [read post]
8 Mar 2016, 4:16 am
Bush’s failed nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers in 2005. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' proffered explanations for not hiring or promoting the plaintiff to a certain position, and for, instead, promoting a white woman to that position, were a pretext for intentional racial discrimination (see Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' proffered explanations for not hiring or promoting the plaintiff to a certain position, and for, instead, promoting a white woman to that position, were a pretext for intentional racial discrimination (see Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' proffered explanations for not hiring or promoting the plaintiff to a certain position, and for, instead, promoting a white woman to that position, were a pretext for intentional racial discrimination (see Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 10:58 am
Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that there were triable issues of fact as to whether the defendants' proffered explanations for not hiring or promoting the plaintiff to a certain position, and for, instead, promoting a white woman to that position, were a pretext for intentional racial discrimination (see Lefort v Kingsbrook Jewish Med. [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 8:38 am
On June 25, 2013 the Supreme Court's assessment of the case of Shelby County v. [read post]
