Search for: "State v. Bias"
Results 4541 - 4560
of 5,337
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jun 2022, 7:00 am
Lesko to address political bias by the platforms, and Rep. [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 9:05 pm
In a memorandum by Joseph V. [read post]
31 Mar 2020, 9:40 am
To turn to speech hostile to a group I belong to (Jews), when I talked about a rare recent group libel case, the Montana State v. [read post]
6 Jul 2012, 6:52 am
There are many cases out there I could cite for that proposition, but I'm going to indulge in bias and cite the opinion written by the late United States District Judge Richard A. [read post]
5 Aug 2014, 10:50 am
Yesterday, in U.S. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 9:01 pm
Bollinger and Gratz v. [read post]
15 Jan 2020, 5:47 pm
See Matal v. [read post]
18 Apr 2010, 8:05 pm
Padmore asserted that the October 12 e-mail proved that LaQue terminated his employment based on a demonstrable antigay bias. [read post]
4 May 2022, 10:27 am
Supreme Court cases, Moe v. [read post]
5 May 2019, 9:01 pm
For fans of Charles Dickens, we can call this the Jarndyce v. [read post]
30 Jul 2020, 6:30 am
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which misconstrued a Colorado official's isolated statement as widespread anti-religious bias; Trump v. [read post]
30 Nov 2023, 12:45 pm
In United States v. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:41 am
It is hard to see just how wearing a religious symbol necessarily impacts the neutrality of a state employee, or how taking off such a symbol between 9 AM and 5 PM on weekdays removes any bias of conscience (as a reminder, the Charter of Values would not only apply to those employees making decisions, such as judges, but also, for example, some teachers). [read post]
5 Jun 2023, 9:19 am
In Giglio v. [read post]
29 Jun 2023, 7:33 am
Contra, EEOC v. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
Arthur v. [read post]
10 Sep 2012, 4:33 am
Forfeiture by wrongdoing in a principle in the common law that was first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Reynolds v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 11:20 am
Hasemann v. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 10:16 am
Under the Supreme Court precedent of Cheney v. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 11:08 am
In any event, the Appellate Division stated that his contention was without merit because the father's income for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation includes imputed income (Family Ct Act 413[1][b][5][iv], [v] ), and thus his income was above the federal poverty income guidelines (see generally s 413[1][g]; Matter of Julianska v. [read post]
