Search for: "Little v. U. S"
Results 421 - 440
of 1,709
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2020, 6:54 am
Petitioners' First Amendment challenge to Wisconsin's integrated bar arrangement is foreclosed by Keller v. [read post]
28 May 2020, 2:25 pm
Courts have consistently applied this rule to social media platforms, including the 9th Circuit’s recent decision in Prager U v. [read post]
21 May 2020, 7:38 am
In Ramos v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 6:55 am
My suggestion seemed to have gained little traction then. [read post]
12 May 2020, 4:05 am
Booking.com, which asks whether the addition of “.com” to a generic term creates a protectable trademark, and Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. [read post]
10 May 2020, 6:00 am
Büchel and the 5Pointz Michelangelos v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
7 May 2020, 1:06 pm
" Whole Woman's Health v. [read post]
5 May 2020, 3:54 am
At Slate, David Gans argues that “[t]he sweeping arguments for a total religious exemption” in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. [read post]
2 May 2020, 1:07 pm
And the Plaintiffs claimed that the Little Tucker Act itself was unconstitutional: In the Tucker Act and Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 9:01 pm
In the dissent’s view, the Supreme Court foreclosed debate when it summarized in DeShaney v. [read post]
28 Apr 2020, 4:24 am
S., at 204; United States v. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 1:44 pm
Because "the grant of jurisdiction" in the Tucker Act "is practically identical to that" of the Little Tucker Act, Kipperman v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 8:16 pm
The opinion of Justice Gorsuch ended with the text:With little to work with in the statute’s language, structure, and history, Fossil ultimately rests on an appeal topolicy. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 10:41 am
But, as the proclamation itself acknowledges, its restrictions will do little to address these pressing concerns. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 4:41 pm
The first is the filing of a lawsuit in federal court by the Governor of Missouri against the People's Republic of China, the Chinese Communist Party and other organs (Missouri v, People's Republic of China). [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 12:00 am
In Comcast Corp. v. [read post]
