Search for: "Pitts v. Pitts" Results 441 - 460 of 471
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Feb 2008, 2:10 am
The question posed, of course, is not just one of public v. private, but of big government v. small. [read post]
8 Jan 2008, 1:41 pm
For more background, see this New York Times story and this wonderful summary of amicus briefs in the case from Mike Pitts. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 7:45 am
Raleigh, NC 27673 Phone: (919) 733-9250; (V/TTY); (800) 821-6922 (V/TTY/Toll Free in NC only) Fax: (919) 733-9173 Pathways to the Future, Inc. 525 Mineral Springs Drive Sylva, NC 28779 Phone: (828) 631-1167(V/TTY) Fax: (828) 631-1169 E-mail: pathways@main.nc.us State ADA Coordinator Larry Jones NC Office on the ADA 217 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603-1336 Phone: (919) 715-2302 (V/TTY) E-mail: Larry.Jones@ncmail.net Web:… [read post]
13 Nov 2007, 7:03 am
Below you will find the Pennsylvania UCP affiliates: UCP of Pennsylvania 1902 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 761-6129; (866) 761-6129 (Toll Free) Fax: (717) 761-2534 E-mail: info@ucpofpa.org Web: http://www.ucpofpa.org UCP Central PA 44 South 38th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717) 975-0611 Fax: (717) 975-0839 E-mail: kidscenter@ucpcentralpa.org Web: http://www.ucpcentralpa.org Administrative Office/Alternatives West 925 Linda Lane Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: (717)… [read post]
4 Oct 2007, 11:05 pm
Supreme Court will take place next Monday on one of the most important business cases of our time -- the Stoneridge Investment Partners v. [read post]
11 Sep 2007, 1:27 pm
Pitts, 503 U.S. 467 (1992); Board of Educ. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2007, 11:58 am
The trial bar's efforts to broadly expand the securities laws through judicial fiat is challenged in an amicus brief filed in Stoneridge v. [read post]
18 Apr 2007, 11:42 pm
I: Introduction During the uncertain times of World War II, Harvard University's president was interviewed concerning the condition of the law school. [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 12:12 pm
Instead, he concluded that the Respondent's unilateral action was unlawful because the Respondent hired a workforce consisting solely of its predecessor's Union-represented employees and that the Respondent was a "perfectly clear" successor within the meaning of NLRB v. [read post]