Search for: "State v. Kaplan" Results 441 - 460 of 761
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Jul 2013, 3:23 pm by David Lat
Kaplan, Roberta Kaplan, SCOTUS, Stop and Frisk, Supreme Court, United States v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 3:04 pm by Lyle Denniston
This action only dealt with benefits for gay and lesbian federal workers and their families, but government agencies that carry out some 1,100 federal laws and scores of official regulations dealing with marital benefits and opportunities also are expected to begin taking steps to implement the Court’s ruling in the case of United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 6:05 am by Staci Zaretsky
Tim Huelskamp, Roberta Kaplan, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Tim Huelskamp, Windsor v. [read post]
20 Jun 2013, 6:41 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
This pro se plaintiff might have a property interest, so his case is reinstated by the Court of Appeals.The case is Cancel v. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 11:56 am by Raffaela Wakeman
In MIT Technology Review, Fred Kaplan authored this lengthy history of the drone and its proliferation in in military and CIA operations. [read post]
31 May 2013, 5:37 am
Equal Opportunity Employment Comm'n v. [read post]
29 May 2013, 9:16 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
McKenna, 178 P.3d 1198, 1201 (Colo. 2008) (“[A] claim under the TCPA for $500 in liquidated damages per violation is a penalty that cannot be assigned); Kaplan v. [read post]
15 May 2013, 6:55 am by Joel R. Brandes
Justice Richter found that the Supreme Court ignored its own custody schedule when it stated that the parents here shared “very nearly equal” physical custody of the child. [read post]
1 May 2013, 10:28 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Cir. 2013) (noting a party may not object to a claim construc- tion it proposed or agreed to); Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2013, 12:00 am
”  ·         In Lazare Kaplan Int’l, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Apr 2013, 8:12 am by Raffaela Wakeman
Now available in redacted form: the government’s opposition brief and the defendant’s reply in United States v. [read post]