Search for: "HAIR v. STATE"
Results 541 - 560
of 1,759
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2017, 9:20 pm
” In Expressions Hair Design v. [read post]
17 Jul 2017, 4:59 pm
” The defendant in Commonwealth v. [read post]
16 Jul 2017, 11:20 am
According to the Tribunal:[Zilberg] stated that the Defendants’ decision amounted to a hurtful determination of how he should practice his religion. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 1:08 pm
Kelley v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 1:08 pm
Kelley v. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 9:19 am
Bibby v. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 7:03 am
The Supreme Court held that the Appeal Court had not applied the correct test from R (Bagdanavicius) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, which for threats from third parties is whether the state has failed to provide reasonable protection against harm inflicted by non-state agents. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 3:21 pm
Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs. [read post]
28 Jun 2017, 4:24 am
What if it was against red-haired people? [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 1:16 pm
While the drawing was rough, it depicted Petitioner’s nipples, chest hair, pubic hair, penis, and testicles. [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 8:38 am
Corbello v. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 3:05 pm
The rules make certain statements explicitly not hearsay by stating so clearly. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:06 pm
(U.S.S.C., March 29, 2017, Expressions Hair Design v. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court recently decided Expressions Hair Design v. [read post]
24 May 2017, 7:36 pm
Consider preparing your hearing with the following issues to be explored (and these are just a few ideas):Photos - background, clothing, jewelry, scars, tattoos, hats, size of face, expressions, anything else unusual;Appearance of the defendant - age, weight, skin tone, features, hair length, hair color, scars, tattoos, particular featuresIs there anything unusual about your client's appearance that was omitted from the description? [read post]
8 May 2017, 11:36 am
District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss a claim for sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII in Philpott v. [read post]
8 May 2017, 5:55 am
Even though natural hair braiding is, well, natural, the Hoosier State previously forced braiders to comply with the state’s tangled mess of cosmetology licensing laws. [read post]
1 May 2017, 10:00 pm
The case, filed May 1, 2017, isEagles Ltd v Hotel California Baja LLC et al, U.S. [read post]
1 May 2017, 6:27 am
The decision from April 2017 is called Maracle v. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 5:56 am
Supreme Court issued its ruling in Moore v. [read post]
