Search for: "Board v. Board" Results 201 - 220 of 45,324
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
12 Jul 2015, 1:22 pm by Daily Record Staff
Administrative law — Wrongful termination conspiracy — Collateral estoppel Josephat Mua appeals from the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County’s dismissal of his Second Amended Complaint against Board of Education of Prince George’s County (“Board”); Board members and employees Verjeana M. [read post]
25 Apr 2017, 8:56 am by Daily Record Staff
As a result of that incident, the Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City (the “Liquor Board”) issued ... [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 11:41 am by Daily Record Staff
Administrative law — Liquor board — Failure to recuse commissioner In this appeal, Ian and Charles Parrish (collectively “Appellants”) challenge the decision of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, which affirmed a decision of the Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City (“the Board”) to nullify an application to transfer a liquor license. [read post]
13 Jun 2015, 10:04 am by Daily Record Staff
The case was transferred to the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County following the Board’s notice ... [read post]
6 Feb 2014, 7:20 pm by Gene Takagi
 Check out some of our other posts on committees: Everything You Wanted to Know About Nonprofits & CommitteesAdvisory Board v. [read post]
18 Nov 2010, 11:18 am by WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF
Municipalities Judicial review; equitable estoppel Tammy Stachowiak appeals an order dismissing her appeal from a ruling by the Shawano County Board of Adjustment. [read post]
13 Nov 2020, 12:37 pm by Daily Record Staff
Torts — Schoolyard injury — Foreseeability This is a lawsuit by the mother of a middle school student, on behalf of her daughter, against the Baltimore County school board for injuries suffered by the child while engaging in a required physical education (P.E.) event on school property. [read post]
10 Oct 2012, 7:42 am
The blog's author describes the site as follows: I have created a website devoted to making sense of § 101 patent-eligibility since Bilski v. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 1:25 pm by Howard Knopf
That may be in part because the Board explicitly took no position on whether the tariff is “mandatory” and that question, as everyone knows, is pending in the Federal Court of Appeal and may be headed once again to the Supreme Court of Canada, which will presumably, if necessary, confirm that it said what it meant and meant what it said in 2015 about tariffs not being mandatory for users in the CBC v SODRACcase argued  by yours truly on behalf of Prof. [read post]