Search for: "United States v. United Air Lines, Inc." Results 221 - 240 of 418
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Dec 2009, 8:53 am by Abbott & Kindermann
 The City prevailed on all issues but the general plan consistency issue pertaining to whether or not the City properly “coordinated” with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service as called for in the planning document. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 pm by Steven M. Taber
Landfill gas collected by the separate Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) and Edgeboro Disposal Inc. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 3:51 am
* The test used by Woodbridge for this evaluation was discontinue as the company had concerns as to its reliability. ** In Sutton v United Air Lines, Inc., 527 US 471, the Supreme Court suggested, but did not specifically hold, that working was a major life activity *** Relying on Mathews' physician's statement, the Post did not allow Mathews to work during this period. [read post]
23 Aug 2010, 1:22 am by Kelly
Diamond Innovations Inc (EDTexweblog.com) (Docket Report) District Court W D Pennsylvania will revisit and reconsider the standing issue in false marking case: United States of America ex rel FLFMC, LLC v. [read post]
22 Sep 2020, 5:01 am by Russell Spivak
Indeed, Harry Crouch, president of the NCFM, announced that the organization was “exploring its options, including filing a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 7:59 pm by Steven M. Taber
– Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register, July 2, 2010 In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree, to address a lawsuit filed by Comite Civico Del Valle,Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Dec 2011, 11:54 am by admin
Steel Investment Canada Case On November 24, 2011, the Supreme Court of Canada denied leave in United States Steel Corporation et al. v. [read post]