Search for: "MALEE v DISTRICT COURT" Results 321 - 340 of 2,022
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Feb 2010, 3:30 am by Russ Bensing
  The 8th District’s decision last week in State v. [read post]
24 Feb 2010, 3:30 am by Russ Bensing
  The 8th District’s decision last week in State v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:42 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The Second Circuit agrees with the district court.The case is United States v. [read post]
9 Jul 2014, 10:24 am by Cynthia L. Hackerott
Of note, the magistrate concluded that the record showed the OFCCP did not comply with the standard set forth in the DC district court’s 2000 decision in Beverly Enterprises v Herman (79 EPD ¶40,258) regarding the initial selection of BOA for review. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 8:16 am by Joy Waltemath
Turning to the employee’s sex discrimination claim, which was based on his termination, the court observed that after the Second Circuit’s decision in Littlejohn v. [read post]
5 Oct 2010, 4:39 am by John Phillips
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, an employee’s suit was dismissed, in part, for exactly that reason. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 8:00 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The district court said the case can go to trial, but the Court of Appeals reverses and says the officer has qualified immunity.The case is Pinter v. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 1:25 pm by Diana Lin
The repercussions of the Supreme Court’s 2011 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 9:30 am by Dennis Crouch
This ruling aligned patent law with the Court’s prior decision in Petrella v. [read post]
1 Dec 2021, 6:49 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The district court dismissed the case on constitutional standing grounds, and the Court of Appeals affirms.The case is McNeil v. [read post]
28 Nov 2022, 1:07 pm by Steven Cohen
– United States District Court – Eastern District of Tennessee – November 21, 2022) involves an employment claim. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 6:15 pm by Sandy T. Fox
In affirming the decision of the Miami-Dade divorce and paternity court, the Third District Court of Appeal held that the plain language of Florida Statute 742.18 mandates that when a movant relies upon DNA tests administered prior to the filing of a petition, the tests must have been administered within 90 days prior to the filing of the petition. [read post]