Search for: "United States v. Taylor"
Results 421 - 440
of 1,574
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2019, 2:00 am
The specific issue before the Court is: Whether Taylor v. [read post]
14 Sep 2007, 1:56 am
"
Federal Decisions:
United States v. [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 9:49 am
Here, as in United States v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 10:08 am
On December 19, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order in the case of Doe I v. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 10:06 pm
United States v. [read post]
18 May 2012, 6:44 am
United States v. [read post]
9 Feb 2016, 5:59 am
United States v. [read post]
1 May 2016, 6:18 am
United States, 2016 U.S. [read post]
19 Jun 2022, 10:22 pm
In the Ericsson v. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 3:25 pm
After serving his sentence, Divito was extradited to the United States in 2005 to face drug-related charges there and he pleaded guilty. [read post]
22 May 2024, 3:00 am
Taylor, 244 N.C. [read post]
24 Jul 2017, 8:57 am
Michigan Court of Appeals, in People v Killich, No. 329941, held that the Juvenile Code doesn’t allow for the imposition of a flat rate probation supervision fee, and vacated the trial court order imposing the fee and remanded for a corrected order of disposition.FACTS: Respondent Taylor Killich, a juvenile, pled no contest to a juvenile petition and was placed on probation for three months. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 7:41 pm
See United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2023, 1:36 pm
Taylor (Tribal Court Jurisdiction; Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act) Pollard, et al. v. [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 7:39 am
In Taylor v. [read post]
6 Aug 2017, 3:37 pm
Pa. 2008); United States v. [read post]
13 Sep 2018, 12:11 pm
Facts: This case (EDMOND v. [read post]
14 May 2007, 8:49 am
It includes not only active participants in hostilities but also anyone who "purposefully and materially" supported attacks on the United States or its allies -- language that arguably encompasses anyone who sent money to a banned group or food to a combatant son. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 4:00 am
" This failure, said the State, resulted in certain employees being identified in the stipulation as P S and T unit employees although they, in fact, continued to perform duties that are appropriately deemed managerial or confidential within the meaning of the Taylor Law.The Director denied the motion and, ultimately, PERB granted PEF's petition to the extent of placing the 250 positions in the P S and T unit. [read post]
27 Nov 2017, 4:00 am
These reductions in the State's "employer contributions for health insurance" were also applied to retired judges and other retired employees of the State as the employer notwithstanding the fact that such retirees were not in danger of suffering " layoff, salary freezes and unpaid furloughs" nor were they members of a collective bargaining unit within the meaning of the Taylor Law [Article 14 of the Civil Service Law Article]. [read post]