Search for: "PEREZ v. STATE"
Results 541 - 560
of 1,177
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Dec 2011, 9:29 am
Perez.) [read post]
14 Nov 2022, 9:04 am
Last week, in United States v. [read post]
30 Dec 2013, 5:25 am
We praised Perez here.4. [read post]
17 Apr 2015, 10:10 am
In two recent decisions, Fordham v. [read post]
30 May 2014, 9:00 am
It's that time again... time to check in on the week's news in Suits by Suits: The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its opinion in Velazquez-Perez v. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 6:11 am
The controlling Supreme Court precedent is United States v. [read post]
28 Apr 2013, 1:42 pm
Plaintiff did not adequately preserve the issue on appeal.In Perez v. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 10:11 am
The change to the FMLA policy would come after United States v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 2:00 am
Recently, Assembly Member V. [read post]
16 Sep 2008, 9:40 am
Radeker and modified in United States v. [read post]
18 Nov 2012, 6:00 am
Sentenced to six months house arrest and a fine of $10,000.United States v. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 12:08 pm
Va. 2007), with her fallback position being the DTC advertising exception allowed in Perez v. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 12:08 pm
Va. 2007), with her fallback position being the DTC advertising exception allowed in Perez v. [read post]
27 Dec 2007, 6:01 am
One key provision of USERRA is that an employer may not limit, by contract or otherwise, any rights granted under that statute.In Perez v. [read post]
25 Aug 2022, 9:41 am
The Advantage of Advertising, LLC v City of Opelika, AL, 2022 WL 3230430 (MD Ala 8/10/2022 [read post]
13 Feb 2012, 9:46 am
The matter then came before Rolf Driver FM in the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia: Perez & Ors v Fernandez [2012] FMCA 2 (10 February 2012). [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 6:32 am
Perez for the National Law Journal, arguing that the Voting Rights Act “has served its purpose but is now outmoded and unworkable. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
Indeed, respondents essentially concede that if an entity is a "public body" for purposes of the OML, it is a public "agency" for purposes of FOIL (see generally Perez, 5 NY3d at 528), although the converse is not necessarily true (see Citizens for Alternatives to Animal Labs, Inc. v Board of Trustees of State Univ. of New York, 92 NY2d 357, 362 [1998]). [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 12:05 am
The California Supreme Court invalidated the state's anti-miscegenation statute on state constitutional grounds in Perez v. [read post]
27 Mar 2015, 3:37 am
Secretary Perez: “I am not a happy camper. [read post]
