Search for: "Pettis v. State"
Results 561 - 580
of 721
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Dec 2017, 5:50 am
As a state court said in another sexual harassment case recently, “[a]n unfortunate fact of life is that the modern workplace is sometimes a rough and tumble environment, where pettiness, inconsideration and discourtesy reign. . . . [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 6:14 am
The obvious advantage is that there is less burden on the courts to deal with petty matters which often permeate the Magistrates courts and which could be dealt with by mediation. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 7:01 am
Marmolejo-Campos v. [read post]
18 Jul 2008, 6:31 pm
The CA v. [read post]
21 Feb 2016, 10:44 am
In Petty v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 11:02 pm
In fact it was not until the landmark care of People v. [read post]
23 May 2012, 12:51 am
In its decision the BVerfG stressed that (like all other cases) cases relating to under-age celebrities required a case-by-case balancing of the conflicting rights (freedom of expression v personality right). [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 3:47 pm
I ran into this dilemma the other day when discussing the classic case of Moore v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:08 pm
., People v Freeland, 36 NY2d 518, 525 [1975].) [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 8:27 am
"] Other aspects of the dispute that had intersting and recurring social media tweaks: other public employee cases have raised the similar issue of whether the employee was speaking as a citizen or an employee; the law is employer-favorable, but I would not be surprised to see an appeals court give her another chance (this aspect of the dispute vaguely reminds me of Bland v. [read post]
28 Dec 2019, 3:33 pm
The court declined to retain jurisdiction of state law claims and dismissed the case, though without prejudice to a state court filing of the state law claims. [read post]
7 May 2012, 4:18 am
This week will see the State Opening of Parliament. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 3:34 am
However, recordings released before 1972 are protected by state-level rather than federal copyright law, so digital services argued that that royalty obligation didn't apply to pre-1972 tracks. [read post]
2 Feb 2007, 6:52 am
Proceedings of the Electoral Commission and of the Two Houses of Congress in Joint Meeting Relative to the Count of Electoral Votes Cast December 6, 1876, for the Presidential Term
Commencing March 4, 1877
1 v. (1877) United States. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 1:10 pm
As Justice Brandeis wrote in his canonical concurring opinion in Whitney v. [read post]
5 Jan 2009, 3:34 am
As the Court said in Johnson v. [read post]
29 Oct 2022, 9:22 am
People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). [read post]
29 Oct 2022, 9:22 am
People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015). [read post]
7 Jun 2023, 9:37 am
From Justice Lawrence's opinion in Herbert v. [read post]
13 Oct 2015, 4:51 am
United States (1970) and Cohen v. [read post]
