Search for: "Lones v. Lones"
Results 361 - 380
of 1,881
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
16 Sep 2019, 8:48 am
On August 28, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit answered this question in the negative with its decision in Salcedo v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 7:30 am
Lone Oak Club, LLC (No. 18-0264) Water Law Ladonna Degan; Ric Terrones; John McGuire; Reed Higgins; Mike Gurley; Larry Eddington; Steven McBride v. the Board of Trustees of the Dallas Police and Fire Pension System (No. 19-0234) Public Employees • State Constitution Wednesday Sep 18 San Antonio River Authority v. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 6:00 am
Think Brown v. [read post]
8 Sep 2019, 4:24 pm
Obeid v. [read post]
1 Sep 2019, 7:31 pm
The recent arbitration decision in Acadia University v Acadia University Faculty Association is instructive in this regard. [read post]
22 Aug 2019, 6:03 am
The First Circuit had long followed the Fourth Circuit’s 1985 ruling in Lubrizol Enterprises v. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 4:40 pm
Justice James Edelman wrote in the decision: The code that now regulates their behaviour no longer turns public servants into lonely ghosts … But, properly interpreted, it still casts a powerful chill over political communication. [read post]
9 Aug 2019, 2:31 pm
Tries to address 1A issues including US v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 6:24 am
Scham v. [read post]
4 Aug 2019, 10:03 pm
(See Grimshaw v. [read post]
28 Jul 2019, 9:01 pm
Donnelly in 1984 and five years later elaborated on in Allegheny County v. [read post]
28 Jul 2019, 6:57 am
Ermini v. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 11:38 am
In Katz v. [read post]
18 Jul 2019, 3:44 pm
His dissent in Bush v. [read post]
11 Jul 2019, 8:00 am
Supreme Court’s decision in South Dakota v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 4:29 am
Here is the opinion in Paquin v. [read post]
8 Jul 2019, 9:24 am
In Gundy v. [read post]
5 Jul 2019, 7:43 am
In Texas v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:28 am
On status, Lord Wilson concluded that being a lone parent, or a lone parent with a child under the age of 5, is a relevant status for the purposes of art 14. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:27 am
The court preferred the Thlimmenos approach and, applying the art 14 analysis, Lord Wilson in the lead judgment found that the reduction of benefits was within the ambit of art 8 (the Government had conceded that it was within the ambit of A1P1), the appellants had a relevant status as lone parents or lone parents with children under 5, and the appropriate comparator was everyone else made subject to the cap (i.e. dual parents or lone parents with school-age children). [read post]
