Search for: "United States v. Cooper"
Results 4421 - 4440
of 4,613
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Oct 2007, 9:18 am
The Board also affirmed the judge's finding that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by declaring impasse over a change in the scope of the bargaining unit. [read post]
9 Oct 2007, 10:49 pm
United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) .................. 4 Johnson v. [read post]
9 Oct 2007, 12:59 am
In its decision in Chrismon, et al. v. [read post]
8 Oct 2007, 5:38 pm
District Court Judge Mary Little Cooper granted the motion. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 11:08 pm
" (quoting United States v. [read post]
5 Oct 2007, 5:59 am
In this case, if he fails to state his opinions within the specified period, he shall be considered to have no opinion. (3)The head of Si/Gun/Gu shall determine the amount of a fine for negligence taking into consideration the motives and consequences of the offense [read post]
3 Oct 2007, 2:59 pm
United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2007, 8:03 am
United Staffing Alliance, another ERISA case involving a claimed right to medical benefits. ** 06-1505, Meacham v. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 9:20 pm
United States v. [read post]
28 Sep 2007, 9:00 pm
In reaching its decision, the court is persuaded by the reasoning of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Molina ex rel. [read post]
27 Sep 2007, 4:08 am
United States v. [read post]
16 Sep 2007, 10:18 am
See also United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 3:47 pm
United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC Cir. 1923). [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 10:39 am
Malcolm, 803 F.2d 46, 54 (2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 910 (1987) (city has standing for third-party claim against state as to claims based on prison overcrowding); United States v. [read post]
10 Sep 2007, 12:55 am
In Cooper v. [read post]
8 Sep 2007, 12:36 pm
The statute can survive strict scrutiny only if it is "narrowly tailored to promote a compelling government interest," United States v. [read post]
6 Sep 2007, 2:12 pm
Can-Am Plumbing v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 2:00 pm
Harlan Protass just alerted me to, and blogs here, a remarkable district court opinion United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 1:49 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2007, 11:40 am
On appeal, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court's decision to include Cipla:"Here, we do not know if Cipla first approached Ivax or vice versa, but the plan to manufacture, import, market, and sell the EO products described in the ANDA was undoubtedly a cooperative venture, and Cipla was to manufacture and sell infringing EO products to Ivax for resale in the United States. [read post]
