Search for: "Stevens v. Hall" Results 21 - 40 of 316
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2019, 4:20 am by Edith Roberts
Yesterday the late Justice John Paul Stevens lay in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, attended by former clerks and after a brief ceremony that included remarks by Justice Elena Kagan, who succeeded Stevens on the court. [read post]
21 Aug 2013, 4:22 am
Determining eligibility for accidental disability benefits Mruczek v McCall, 299 AD2d 638, Steven v McCall,**   The Mruczek Case: The Mruczek decision demonstrates the burden an individual has in proving that he or she is eligible for accidental disability benefits or line of duty disability benefits. [read post]
16 May 2012, 7:35 am by Conor McEvily
  At JURIST, Julia Zebley summarizes Monday’s decision in Hall v. [read post]
25 Mar 2008, 11:07 pm
The Supreme Court has decided the case of Hall Street Associates, L.L.C. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 10:00 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
Flom, president and CEO, Manhattan Automobile Company Steven V. [read post]
30 May 2014, 5:14 am by Amy Howe
In a post at The Economist’s Democracy in America blog, Steven Mazie discusses the Court’s decision in Hall v. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 12:19 am by 1 Crown Office Row
Bull & Bull v Hall & Preddy [2012] EWCA Civ 83 – Read judgment On 10th February 2012, the Court of Appeal upheld a Judge’s ruling that a Christian couple, Peter and Hazelmary Bull, had discriminated against Martin Hall and Steven Preddy on grounds of sexual orientation when they refused them a double-bedded room at their hotel near Penzance. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 6:50 am by Erin Miller
The biggest news out of the Court yesterday was the opinion in United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 4:18 am by Edith Roberts
First up is civil procedure case Hall v. [read post]
22 May 2019, 4:10 am by Edith Roberts
Hall, and held that a state cannot be sued in the courts of another state without its consent; he argues that “there was no basis to overrule Hall, because that case was both correct and readily distinguishable from this one, and there were other bases for setting aside what the Nevada courts did here. [read post]