Search for: "Hill v. District Court"
Results 241 - 260
of 2,769
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 May 2008, 7:04 am
PACER contains the dockets for the underlying district court proceedings in Case Nos. 1:99-cv-01193 (USA v. [read post]
17 Sep 2015, 5:35 am
Hill filed a motion in the district court for the Northern District of Georgia to declare the administrative proceeding unconstitutional and to enjoin the administrative proceeding from occurring until the court issues its ruling. [read post]
16 Nov 2022, 5:46 am
” Even domestic abusers get a pass under Bruen, as Texas District Court Judge David Counts ruled in U.S. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2022, 4:42 am
In Snyder-Hill v. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 1:33 am
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part, and denied in part, the defendants motion to dismiss in Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank et al v. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 4:19 pm
In the 2023 case Chestnut Hill NY, Inc. v. [read post]
10 May 2010, 6:24 pm
In Hill v. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 8:00 am
United States v. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 3:17 am
Supreme Court made its landmark decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 4:53 pm
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. district court, concerned overtime wages. [read post]
8 Mar 2017, 4:15 am
In Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. [read post]
19 May 2014, 3:18 pm
The district court handed down a decision today in Council v. [read post]
23 Feb 2010, 4:30 am
Somal v. [read post]
23 Nov 2012, 12:38 pm
The Court also issued a ruling on a similar case, Birge v. [read post]
3 Jan 2015, 1:27 pm
Wolf v. [read post]
3 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
LEXIS 172056 (D CO, Dec. 28, 2015), a Colorado federal district court adopted a magistrate's recommendations (2015 U.S. [read post]
21 Nov 2023, 2:00 am
The Claremont Canyon Conservancy v. [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 1:31 pm
In Wortham v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 5:18 am
So far, to my knowledge, no court of appeals has weighed in on the issue and the district courts listed above are fairly evenly divided. [read post]
9 Aug 2010, 4:27 am
”These directives were interpreted to prohibit the wearing of a khimar, an “Islamic religious head scarf, designed to cover the hair, forehead, sides of the neck, shoulders, and chest,” which was until then worn by some female Muslim employees inside of the Hill Facility.EEOC filed a lawsuit on behalf of a class of Muslim women employees against GEO, contending that GEO violated Title VII's prohibitions on religious discrimination when it failed to accommodate the… [read post]
