Search for: "United States v. Burden"
Results 3161 - 3180
of 9,858
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 May 2012, 4:30 am
Brey Corp. v. [read post]
1 May 2012, 4:30 am
Brey Corp. v. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 2:28 am
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
18 Nov 2011, 3:00 am
Bauman, et al. v. [read post]
10 Sep 2014, 9:36 pm
On September 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision focusing on the "party aggrieved" doctrine in the case of Benjamin Atkinson v. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 5:12 pm
Dist. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 12:22 pm
Ealy v. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 7:30 am
As the United States Court of Appeals for the 5thCircuit held in Wallace v Methodist Hospital System, 271 F.3d 212, where the employer has presented a lawful reason to rebut an individual’s prima facie evidence of unlawful discrimination, the burden shifts to the charging party to “present facts to rebut each and every legitimate non-discriminatory reason advanced by [the employer] in order to survive [a motion for] summary judgment” submitted to… [read post]
28 Jun 2023, 8:01 am
With a few exceptions the Supreme Courts of the United States both in Washington and 50 state capitals are courts of “limited jurisdiction. [read post]
31 Aug 2016, 7:59 am
From Monday’s decision in Doe v. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 5:01 am
See generally Citizens United v. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 8:55 am
Bruno v. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 4:01 am
Two feuding religious organizations had faced off before the TTAB in a dispute involving the registrability of the religious habit design shown above for "clothing, namely [a] ceremonial habit worn by distinguished religious representatives in certain ceremonies" and for "promoting public awareness of the need for healthy and religions families in the United States. [read post]
23 Oct 2007, 12:27 pm
” (Morehart v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 11:44 am
The Ohio Supreme court tackled that issue a year ago in State v. [read post]
17 Apr 2009, 3:47 am
Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 302 AD2d 155, 163-164 [1st Dept 2002]; Buran v. [read post]
8 Feb 2020, 5:09 pm
On February 7, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a per curiam ruling decided the 215 Members of Congress did not have standing to sue President Donald Trump over alleged violations of the U.S. [read post]
8 Feb 2020, 5:09 pm
On February 7, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in a per curiam ruling decided the 215 Members of Congress did not have standing to sue President Donald Trump over alleged violations of the U.S. [read post]
25 Jul 2015, 2:57 pm
See United States v. [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 10:55 am
” United States v. [read post]
