Search for: "Levin v. United States" Results 221 - 240 of 771
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Nov 2010, 9:21 am by James Beck - Guest
  In Geier, but not in Williamson, the United States government had supported preemption on the ground that allowing the state-law claims would conflict with agency objectives. [read post]
6 Mar 2023, 6:51 pm by Haley Proctor
  The Court also found reasoned decision-making in Levine/Schwab Partnership v. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Further, as the decision in Walton v New York State Department of Correctional Servs., 25 AD3d 999, modified, 8 NY3d at 191, notes, "an individual is not required to exhaust the available administrative remedy where such action would constitute an exercise in futility. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Further, as the decision in Walton v New York State Department of Correctional Servs., 25 AD3d 999, modified, 8 NY3d at 191, notes, "an individual is not required to exhaust the available administrative remedy where such action would constitute an exercise in futility. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 5:00 am by Erin Miller
United States (08-1394) - respondent's brief Health Care Service Corp. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 5:18 am
When the United States Supreme Court decides an issue, it is binding on all federal courts throughout the country. [read post]
9 Mar 2007, 10:08 am
Microsoft has stated its support for comprehensive privacy legislation in the United States. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 2:17 am by gmlevine
The Complainant in Streetwise Maps located in the United States (Florida) alleges that Respondent (located in the U.K.) is a competitor in the market it serves. [read post]
10 Aug 2009, 10:00 pm
Sec. 337(a), only the United States can enforce the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. [read post]
23 Mar 2009, 5:57 am
You are undoubtedly aware that the United States Supreme Court has remanded the above matter to this Court for further consideration in light of its opinion in Wyeth v. [read post]