Search for: "COOPER v. STATE"
Results 421 - 440
of 7,835
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Jan 2021, 11:23 am
Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a Motion in Limine in the case of United States v. [read post]
15 Jan 2021, 11:23 am
Attorney for the Southern District of New York filed a Motion in Limine in the case of United States v. [read post]
28 May 2008, 5:18 am
Cooper v. [read post]
3 May 2016, 5:00 am
Title VII, a “precise, complex, and exhaustive” statute, does not prohibit employment practices that are not specifically prohibited by the actCooper v N.Y. [read post]
30 Apr 2009, 4:01 pm
United States v. [read post]
29 Mar 2007, 9:37 am
In U.S. v. [read post]
3 Nov 2007, 2:01 pm
Now in Cooper v. [read post]
16 Jul 2007, 5:14 am
See Cooper v. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 9:35 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Feb 2016, 5:46 am
Vance rejected the notion that Apple should be forced to cooperate only in certain prominent crimes. [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 1:27 pm
See United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2020, 8:54 am
In Cooper’s Hawk Indianapolis, LLC v. [read post]
14 Apr 2023, 3:23 pm
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 6:18 pm
All of this cooperation is to be undertaken at the state to state level--no people to people focus here (Ibid., Art. 4). [read post]
17 Jun 2012, 10:01 pm
Frye and Lafler v. [read post]
24 Nov 2012, 7:14 am
The Court however reiterated that a Member State which had granted or sought to be allowed to grant aid under one of the exceptions provided for in the Treaty rules had a duty to cooperate with the Commission in the proceeding in which it took part, pursuant to which it must in particular provided all the information necessary to enable the Commission to verify that the conditions for the derogation sought were fulfilled (Case C‑364/90 Italy v Commission [1993];… [read post]
8 Feb 2019, 6:22 am
State v. [read post]
17 Oct 2016, 5:02 pm
” (Citing Muzzy Ranch Co. v. [read post]
14 May 2010, 7:31 am
Div. 2009) & Dean v. [read post]
15 Aug 2012, 1:24 pm
" The majority also states, "Because the administrative record reflects that the EPA's rejection is based, in essence, on the Agency's preference for a different drafting style, instead of the standards Congress provided in the CAA, the EPA's decision disturbs the cooperative federalism that the CAA envisions. . . [read post]