Search for: "Brooks v. Brooks" Results 521 - 540 of 2,686
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jan 2014, 8:21 am by Jane Yakowitz
Rose and Brooks examine the development of legalized racial segregation in housing, the gradual shift to the use of covenants in real property deeds to effectuate restrictions, and the legal battle that culminated in the Supreme Court’s rejection of such devices in Shelley v. [read post]
27 Feb 2023, 6:20 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
This is the rare hostile environment case does not involve explicitly-racial comments directed toward the plaintiff; rather it involves personnel actions and statements made at Housing Authority meetings.The case is Williams v. [read post]
3 Feb 2019, 7:46 pm by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 13028 (D NJ, Jan. 28, 2019), a New Jersey federal district court allowed a inmate "independently engaged in Jewish self-practice" to move ahead with some of his claims growing out of the prison's denial of his request for a religious circumcision.In Brooks v. [read post]
15 Sep 2010, 10:16 pm by litigationtech
Be prepared to use to your best advantage this final opportunity to connect with the jury as your visuals are presented, rather than shuffling papers and slides or fumbling with boards and generally appearing unorganized.Pulling it all together for $12.2 million The recent case of Emily Liou v. [read post]
28 Jul 2015, 1:04 pm
Brooks,No. 13-4448, the Court addressed a Rule 60(b) motion filed by a 2254 habeas petitioner who claimed that the case of Martinez v. [read post]
22 Mar 2008, 10:52 am
Justice Brooke in Tomlyn v. [read post]
21 May 2017, 8:54 am by Howard Friedman
LEXIS 73984 (D NJ, May 16, 2017), a New Jersey federal district court dismissed an inmate's complaint that he was prohibited from attending group religious services while in disciplinary detention.In Brooks v. [read post]
2 Jan 2014, 6:00 am
  Further, the Court in Brooks Furniture based its reading on the Supreme Court's decision in Professional Real Estate Investors v Columbia Pictures Industries (1993),  but Judge Rader considered that the Supreme Court's decision did not alter the traditional fee-shifting rule. [read post]