Search for: "US v. Shields"
Results 2681 - 2700
of 4,947
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2015, 4:22 am
After all, they have a shield, gun and bullets, and it’s just too much of a burden to demand they only use them consistent with their precise lawful authority. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 5:00 am
The phrase the court used, “expected to act,” is an odd one in this context. [read post]
8 Apr 2015, 10:14 pm
Culpepper v. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 8:00 am
The most prominent example of this response is Thompson v. [read post]
6 Apr 2015, 9:04 pm
Co. v. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 6:34 am
This concern is often expressed using pejorative “spoliation” terminology, or after-the-fact seeking of sanctions. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 4:00 am
”Here the 1984-1987 and 1987-1990 CBAs provided that "[a]ny administrator who retires . . . shall continue to receive the Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage in effect at the time of his or her retirement, excluding dental coverage and major medical insurance, until the administrator becomes eligible for Medicare, at which time the Board [of Education] shall no longer provide such coverage" while the 1990-1994 CBA provided that "[a]ny administrator who retires . . . shall… [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 3:39 pm
In Romer v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 11:26 am
The union's right to picket cannot "be made a shield for violence, disorder and crime" (Baillis v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 5:57 am
In Friday’s Chan v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 11:37 am
Prosecutor v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 10:57 am
What started out as a shield for minority religious practitioners like Native Americans and the Amish is in danger of being weaponized into a sword against civil rights. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 8:14 am
The case is Smith v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 4:15 am
In ACLU of North California v. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 4:12 am
In Doe v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 5:15 am
A parallel case (Du Daobin v. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 4:30 am
Alex LoBianco told me that his favorite phrase was What was used to be a shield will not be used as a sword. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 7:31 am
No language in RCW 4.24.525 excludes, from the statute’s shield, speech motivated by greed or revenge. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 9:03 pm
Arguing for the local government and two police officers in San Francisco v. [read post]
20 Mar 2015, 10:18 am
While none of these findings are novel or earth-shattering, having them as citable Second Circuit precedent is a noteworthy win for all of us. [read post]
