Search for: "State v. B. V." Results 3641 - 3660 of 41,752
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 May 2007, 5:58 am by Denese Dominguez
The Court further concluded that, because local boards of education have no authority to waive State laws and regulations, they had no jurisdiction over Section 9-106(b) waiver applications implicating State laws or regulations over which the State Board has original jurisdiction.The Court also held that the Unions, as the exclusive representative of Baltimore City school employees, had a statutory and fiduciary duty to represent the Baltimore City public school… [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 7:02 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
” In addition, Tyson states that using statistical averages violated the Rules Enabling Act and the Due Process Clause. [read post]
19 Apr 2008, 12:18 pm
Karl and I just got the following email from sometime contributor Glen Wilkerson about Hall Street v. [read post]
15 Dec 2018, 12:34 pm by Randall Hodgkinson
Jones, No. 114,601 (Sedgwick)K.S.A. 60-1507 appeal (petition for review)Kristen B. [read post]
20 May 2013, 1:35 pm by WIMS
Further, such a reading does not thwart Congress's intent, which recognized that some aggregate actions are inherently local in nature and better suited to adjudication by a State court. [read post]
16 Nov 2009, 7:05 am
Culliver (09-158), and invited the Solicitor General to file a brief expressing the views of the United States in Holy See v. [read post]
30 Apr 2014, 2:03 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The Court of Appeals stated that insofar as the requested records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to State statute, the police are not obligated to provide the records even though redaction might remove all details which tend to identify the victim akin to Matter of Karlin v McMahon, Matter of Short v Bd. of Managers of Nassau County Medical Center. [read post]
17 Jan 2014, 2:43 pm
     The judge then explained that the Supreme Court in enunciated the standard he applied in ruling on the defendants’ Rule 12(b) (6) motion in its decision in Ashcroft v. [read post]