Search for: "PRECISION STANDARD V US"
Results 2921 - 2940
of 4,554
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Jun 2013, 12:12 am
Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 1:28 pm
In the case of People v. [read post]
26 Jun 2013, 12:00 am
“Many of us have been predicting precisely these results for months,” he says. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:13 pm
” Justice Ginsburg, dissenting, had argued to no avail that the use of two different standards would vex both trial judges and juries. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 1:27 pm
Dyson, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 9:52 am
Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 6:57 am
In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v Nassar, the divided Court rejected the notion that the reduced “motivating factor” standard of causation adopted for use in Title VII discrimination cases applied with equal force to claims of retaliation under the Act. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm
The Facts in Vance v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 8:38 am
The Court holds that retaliation under Title VII will use a "but for" not "motivating factor" standard.Justice Kennedy writing for the majority, in language that is music to a defendant's ears, says it bluntly: "This, of course, is a lessened causation standard." [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 5:53 am
Snowden spent his time at the airport or precisely where. [read post]
22 Jun 2013, 7:02 am
You can also use the list of posts. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 3:54 am
(3) Or is it required that the pay should either (a) correspond precisely with or (b) be broadly comparable to the worker's "normal" pay? [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 3:54 am
(3) Or is it required that the pay should either (a) correspond precisely with or (b) be broadly comparable to the worker's "normal" pay? [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 3:54 am
(3) Or is it required that the pay should either (a) correspond precisely with or (b) be broadly comparable to the worker's "normal" pay? [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 7:47 am
Precisely that situation took place this past Monday when the United States Supreme Court overruled Harris v. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 3:00 am
A classic recent example is Kawartha Lakes (City) v. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 12:00 pm
What about the standard probation condition that the probationer not use illegal drugs? [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 6:39 pm
Since its Apprendi v. [read post]
17 Jun 2013, 3:54 am
A more useful if less poetic description of the implied covenant is found in Dalton v. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 3:21 pm
See Cooley v. [read post]
