Search for: "Smith v. California"
Results 2041 - 2060
of 2,261
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2009, 9:22 am
Smith v. [read post]
10 Jun 2009, 12:06 am
(Espinosa v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 12:28 pm
I wholeheartedly approve.Third, I also like how Justice Sills critiques a California Supreme Court case (here, Cosper v. [read post]
24 May 2009, 10:45 am
" Chaplinsky v. [read post]
23 May 2009, 3:43 am
Because AT&T's pension payments accord with a bona fide seniority system's terms, they are insulated from challenge under Title VII §703(h).o May 18, 2009 decision hereo SCOTUS docket hereo SCOTUSwiki hereo Noted here: Reuters; Connecticut Employment Law Blog; Yahoo; WAPO; Christian Science Monitor; Bloomberg; Shaw Valenza; NYTimes; FYI: Central Ohio Employment Law Update; Ross Runkel; Paul Mollica; SCOTUSblog (opinion recap); Fisher &… [read post]
16 May 2009, 4:06 am
John Hospital and Medical Center sued over elimination of program that paid staff for unused sick days when they retired or resignedMO> DECIDED · Plaintiffs lose bid to return suit to state court; fed court will hear age/gender discrim suit by 3 fem senior on-air-personalities vs KMBC-TV> FILED · Ex-65yo Mid-Missouri Bank Exec sues for age/discharge discrim; sez bank has de facto policy of favoring younger employees> NEWS… [read post]
14 May 2009, 1:19 am
Stanford ‘75 Current Position: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of California, ‘01-Present Notable Past Positions: Federal District Judge, ‘98-’01 Most Recent Opinion: Smith v. [read post]
13 May 2009, 9:45 am
Smith (415) 774-3239 nsmith@sheppardmullin.com [read post]
7 May 2009, 12:46 pm
But I agree that under the Supreme Court's 2003 decision in Smith v. [read post]
4 May 2009, 10:30 pm
The criminal plea paved the way for civil settlement in New York v. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 8:00 pm
V. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 7:29 am
Fleming of the Oakland, California, office of Reed Smith LLP. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:01 pm
Smith , No. 08-1477 Sentence for distribution of child pornography is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant defendant a continuance for another chance to present expert testimony; 2) the district court correctly applied 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553 (a) when sentencing defendant, and did not fail to adequately address the factors set forth in the statute; and 3) there is no evidence that the district court's tangential statements about early… [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 12:47 pm
California, 395 U.S. 818 (1969), the U.S. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 9:59 am
The 4th District distinguished the current case from Calderon v. [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 9:55 am
(IBM v. [read post]
12 Apr 2009, 1:03 pm
In Smith v. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 9:35 am
Supreme Court's 1996 Romer v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 8:36 am
Salomon Smith-Barney, Inc., 218 F.R.D. 149 (S.D. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 4:15 am
Witkin, Summary of California Law § 495 [9th ed. 1988]). [read post]
