Search for: "Does 1-4 v. United States Attorney Office"
Results 501 - 520
of 1,972
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 May 2020, 6:05 am
(See Benitez v United Homes of N. [read post]
11 May 2020, 8:07 am
This is largely the tack taken by Paradis, in his May 4 review of the shadow report. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
However, the "date of hire" might not necessarily be the same date used to determine an individual's service for seniority purposes for layoff under State law, i.e., the individual's date of initial permanent appointment in public service.For example, assume Employee A was provisionally appointed on January 1, and Employee B was appointed February 1, of the same year. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
However, the "date of hire" might not necessarily be the same date used to determine an individual's service for seniority purposes for layoff under State law, i.e., the individual's date of initial permanent appointment in public service.For example, assume Employee A was provisionally appointed on January 1, and Employee B was appointed February 1, of the same year. [read post]
8 May 2020, 3:21 pm
P. 4(k)(1)(A)). [read post]
1 May 2020, 12:32 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
However, the "date of hire" might not necessarily be the same date used to determine an individual's service for seniority purposes for layoff under State law, i.e., the individual's date of initial permanent appointment in public service.For example, assume Employee A was provisionally appointed on January 1, and Employee B was appointed February 1, of the same year. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
However, the "date of hire" might not necessarily be the same date used to determine an individual's service for seniority purposes for layoff under State law, i.e., the individual's date of initial permanent appointment in public service.For example, assume Employee A was provisionally appointed on January 1, and Employee B was appointed February 1, of the same year. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 6:03 am
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON TAGNETICS, INC., Appellant, v. [read post]
25 Apr 2020, 6:54 pm
Hickman v. [read post]
25 Apr 2020, 6:54 pm
Hickman v. [read post]
25 Apr 2020, 10:57 am
SCOV asks the Attorney General’s office and Defender General’s office to weigh in. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 7:42 am
(For those who are interested, United States v. [read post]
23 Apr 2020, 8:01 am
(c) This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 8:17 pm
United States v. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 7:25 pm
We must also conserve critical State Department resources so that consular officers may continue to provide services to United States citizens abroad. [read post]
22 Apr 2020, 5:47 pm
Harman v. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 4:41 pm
It does not matter all that much that as law, or legal practice, either the lawsuit or the Senate Bill are laughable. [read post]
21 Apr 2020, 5:00 am
Because Justice Powell's sole vote in the 4-1-4 split cannot set a precedent. [read post]
20 Apr 2020, 12:05 pm
Each Eligible Borrower must be a business that is created or organized in the United States or under the laws of the United States with significant operations in and a majority of its employees based in the United States. [read post]
