Search for: "US v. Givens"
Results 3661 - 3680
of 51,294
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
31 Mar 2016, 7:51 am
Many of us would like to believe that if we are the victims of discrimination in the workplace, we will be given the opportunity to one day prove that case before a jury of our peers. [read post]
19 Apr 2021, 8:07 am
The defendant was an employee of the US Postal Service. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 4:00 am
However, given our conclusion above, it is unnecessary for us to consider whether his conduct would have disqualified him from a favourable costs order, had he otherwise met the preconditions for such an order. [read post]
27 Jan 2009, 2:00 pm
Lu v. [read post]
2 Mar 2010, 7:07 am
In Synar v. [read post]
10 Feb 2012, 7:22 am
The Court held that these phrases must be given their "usual meaning. [read post]
18 Oct 2012, 1:15 am
Paul’s Retail Pty Ltd v Lonsdale Australia Limited [2012] FCAFC 130 Société Anonyme des Manujactures de Glaces v. [read post]
4 Dec 2015, 7:05 am
Her claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and Title VII were dismissed without prejudice (Hernandez v. [read post]
25 Mar 2009, 5:30 pm
From the Fairly Used Blog For background, see Jonathan Pink interviews: District Court Invalidates Portion of Copyright Act as Unconstitutional; Holds State University and Employee Immune From Claim for Copyright Infringement (April 15, 2008) and Follow up questions on state university copyright immunity case - Marketing Information Masters v. [read post]
15 May 2009, 8:27 am
The Trustee seems to be relying heavily on the 85 year old decision in Cunningham v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 9:12 am
See, e.g., US Bioservices Corp. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2021, 11:53 am
See Barnes v. [read post]
24 Sep 2020, 6:00 am
Interestingly, the Court further remarked that acquiring all of InterOil at US$71.46 per share would have cost Exxon over US$1 billion more than it paid, implying that Exxon underpaid by US$1 billion: “[i]t is simply unreasonable, given the number of parties interested in a whole company transaction, and the number and sophistication of InterOil’s shareholders, that $1 billion in value was left on the table. [read post]
4 Apr 2006, 8:45 am
Supreme Court case law on the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement holds that "the consent of one who possesses common authority over premises or effects is valid as against the absent, nonconsenting person with whom that authority is shared" (established in US v. [read post]
8 Aug 2010, 10:20 am
[Post by Venkat] People v. [read post]
16 Jan 2008, 5:20 am
People v. [read post]
17 Jun 2015, 6:35 am
Another provision in the Hyders’ lease disclaimed the holding in Heritage v. [read post]
9 May 2007, 1:25 pm
Jose V [read post]
1 Jun 2009, 9:00 am
In Wang v. 161 Hudson, LLC, Zhong Wang sued 161 Hudson, LLC after the scaffolding Wang was using collapsed. [read post]
