Search for: "Smith v. Board of Adjustment" Results 21 - 40 of 93
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am by MOTP
Contrary to the Court’s meek disclaimer, it was not at all clear that the holding in El Apple applied across the board, as opposed to just the employment context, where Texas substantive law is an analogue to federal civil rights law, and perhaps a few other select areas of law. [read post]
He appealed, arguing that the Board’s decision should not have been applied retroactively to deny his status adjustment. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 8:19 am
(in support of petitioner) __________________ Docket: 08-724 Title: Smith v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 8:25 am by The Public Employment Law Press
In 2009, the plaintiffs filed an action against the Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County which was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice three years later in light of the Supreme Court's decision in "Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County v. [read post]
17 Nov 2006, 11:59 am
See Smith & Johnson Construction Co., 324 NLRB 970 (1997). [read post]
2 Jul 2017, 8:40 pm by Dale Carpenter
Smith (striking down Arkansas’ “disparate treatment” of married gay couples in listing parents on birth certificates). [read post]
5 Nov 2013, 8:40 am by Matthew Crow
Kidd, the survivor of an explosion on board the steamboat Anglo-Norman, who recounted the event of 1850 in his essay “The Experience of a Blown-Up Man. [read post]
16 May 2016, 2:48 pm by David Kopel
The West County Board of Zoning Adjustment found that there was a “public need” for the store, that the store complied with the general zoning plan for the area and that the store would have no adverse impact on residents. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 9:20 am by Dennis Crouch
”) Patent Term Adjustment Dispute: Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. v. [read post]
17 Nov 2018, 12:29 pm by Samuel Bray
The historians' brief offers a case that it describes as a New Deal example of "the functional equivalent of nationwide injunctions in officer suits" (22), namely Railroad Retirement Board v. [read post]