Search for: "Garner v. State, Department of Education" Results 21 - 40 of 82
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Jul 2009, 4:15 am
Designating a hearing officer to consider Civil Service Law Section 75 disciplinary chargesMatter of Perryman v Village of Saranac Lake, 2009 NY Slip Op 05660, Decided on July 2, 2009, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentDonald G. [read post]
3 Feb 2022, 7:41 am by Amy Howe
A year later, the Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in Obergefell v. [read post]
18 Feb 2016, 10:59 am by Margaret Wood
United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), Justice Scalia applied the rule first formulated in Katz v. [read post]
3 Dec 2009, 11:27 am
” However, Assistant to the Solicitor General Toby Heyntens, arguing on behalf of the United States as an amicus in support of petitioner, subsequently pointed out that the Court had previously deemed the student loan exceptions “self-executing” (which would foreclose the possibility that the hardship hearing could be waived); this policy made sense, Heyntens continued, because of the public interest at stake in Department of… [read post]
19 Nov 2007, 7:55 am
Hearing Impairments SHHH-Self Help for Hard-of-Hearing People 501 Sycamore Waterloo, IA 50703 USA Programs for Children and Youth who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing Deaf Services Commission of IA IA Department of Human Rights Lucas State Office Building Des Moines, IA 50 310- 0090 Phone: (515) 281-3164 (V/TTY) E-mail: dhr.dsci@dhr.state.ia.us Web: http://www.state.ia.us. [read post]
18 Jan 2022, 6:10 am by Cinthia Macie
The higher education space continues to be a hotbed for antitrust allegations, and, given the institutions involved, the complaint’s allegations, and the potential defenses, this case should garner significant attention by both the public and antitrust bar. [read post]
18 Jan 2022, 6:10 am by Cinthia Macie
The higher education space continues to be a hotbed for antitrust allegations, and, given the institutions involved, the complaint’s allegations, and the potential defenses, this case should garner significant attention by both the public and antitrust bar. [read post]
25 Sep 2023, 9:02 pm by Eugene Volokh
.), and argues that the panel erred in finding no First Amendment violation by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and the State Department's Global Engagement Center. [* * *] In yesterday's decision in Missouri v. [read post]
24 Apr 2019, 2:23 pm by John Elwood
United States, United States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2018, 4:12 pm by INFORRM
  There was also a case comment on INFORRM by Dominic Garner. [read post]
30 Dec 2016, 8:33 am by Ad Law Defense
Dec. 12, 2016) (Statement of Interest)) and through consent decrees (see Nat’l Fed. of the Blind and United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:31 am by Daniel M. Kowalski
This is recognized in the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) at 9 FAM § 402.1-3 , which states that an “applicant desiring to come to the United States for one principal purpose, and one or more incidental purposes, must be classified in accordance with the principal purpose. [read post]