Search for: "U. S. v. Grant" Results 2001 - 2020 of 3,553
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Sep 2024, 9:55 am by Joel R. Brandes
Supreme Court denied the plaintiff’s motion and granted the defendant’s cross-motion to the extent of awarding the defendant attorneys’ fees in the sum of $1,202.50. [read post]
11 Feb 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
Case Background The Supreme Court is poised to resolve this circuit split in Macquarie Infrastructure Corporation v. [read post]
19 Mar 2025, 10:39 am by Guest Author
Bonfield, Public Participation in Federal Rulemaking Relating to Public Property, Loans, Grants, Benefits, or Contracts, 118 U. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 5:10 am by Maxwell Kennerly
Crowley, Leslie Wharton, Proportionality in the Post-Hoc Analysis of Pre-Litigation Preservation Decisions, 37 U. [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The purpose of the probationary period is to provide "a school district an opportunity to evaluate an individual's performance as a teacher prior to granting tenure" (id. at 1071). [read post]
18 Jul 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
The purpose of the probationary period is to provide "a school district an opportunity to evaluate an individual's performance as a teacher prior to granting tenure" (id. at 1071). [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 5:07 pm by Brian Shiffrin
The court agreed with defendant, finding "that the [*2]defendant's conviction . . . in 2003 was jurisdictionally defective and a nullity and cannot be counted in determining that he is a persistent felony offender" (People v Sanders, 24 Misc 3d 1232[A], 2009 NY Slip Op 51693[U], *2).While the 2003 conviction was jurisdictionally defective and voidable, Sanders never moved to vacate it. [read post]
7 May 2013, 5:51 am by Sarah Erickson-Muschko
” At Dorf on Law, Mike Dorf uses the Court’s recent order dismissing as improvidently granted Boyer v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 1:34 pm by admin
The FTC’s case against the defendants included allegations that they lured consumers with false “free” trial offers for a variety of products, including weight-loss pills, teeth whiteners, health supplements, access to government grants and other products (after which consumers were charged for the false “free” trial, a monthly recurring fee and additional charges for so-called “bonus offers”). [read post]