Search for: "State v. Armstrong"
Results 281 - 300
of 621
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jul 2023, 6:45 am
See United States v. [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 5:00 am
In a recent decision, Nazarie Anderson v. [read post]
22 Nov 2014, 6:01 am
Sharif – loss of bankruptcy court jurisdiction because the case involves an issue of state law on ownership of property; also, debtor’s right to waive Article III jurisdictional bar Monday, January 19: Legal holiday — No arguments Tuesday, January 20: Armstrong v. [read post]
28 May 2013, 8:26 am
” Armstrong v. [read post]
5 May 2009, 12:22 pm
Armstrong (1858) was pro bono. [read post]
30 Jul 2007, 11:24 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
6 Nov 2013, 5:06 am
The case, Bond v. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 1:15 pm
” Citing the case of Armstrong v. [read post]
17 Apr 2019, 6:09 am
Armstrong v. [read post]
7 Jul 2011, 8:50 pm
Because Delaware is an at-will state, it is well established that an employer may terminate an employee for off-duty conduct. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 10:04 am
United States, 597 F. [read post]
5 Jan 2010, 8:43 am
DMV, Oregon Court of Appeals (A133609) (For a summary of the case, see the 12/30/09 OJD Media Release) "… ARMSTRONG, J. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:15 am
United States 13-983Issue: Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. [read post]
9 Sep 2011, 10:38 am
Stern v. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 6:44 am
" Fuzzysharp Technologies Inc. v. 3DLabs Inc. [read post]
16 Nov 2015, 11:38 am
The final rule is especially important for providers in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Armstrong v. [read post]
29 May 2025, 6:00 am
Citing Armstrong v Town of Tonawanda, 214 AD3d 1304, and Meyer v City of Long Beach, 165 AD3d 649, the Appellate Division opined that plaintiffs, who were retirees and not teachers as defined in the CBA, could not have initiated a "contract grievance" before commencing the instant action.The Appellate Division's decision is set out below:Chappaqua Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. [read post]
29 May 2025, 6:00 am
Citing Armstrong v Town of Tonawanda, 214 AD3d 1304, and Meyer v City of Long Beach, 165 AD3d 649, the Appellate Division opined that plaintiffs, who were retirees and not teachers as defined in the CBA, could not have initiated a "contract grievance" before commencing the instant action.The Appellate Division's decision is set out below:Chappaqua Congress of Teachers v Board of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 3:42 am
In a podcast at Oral Argument, Joe Miller and Christian Turner discuss Armstrong v. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 1:00 pm
S.W.D. v. [read post]
