Search for: "United States v. York"
Results 561 - 580
of 14,142
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2009, 8:57 am
”The ruling directly limits New York v. [read post]
29 Nov 2020, 9:00 am
United States. [read post]
30 Apr 2024, 11:11 am
In United States v. [read post]
3 Mar 2017, 4:00 am
Asignacion sought to have the Philippine arbitral award set aside in the United States under the public policy exception in Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. [read post]
11 Aug 2008, 4:58 am
The newspaper also contains an editorial entitled "The United States v. the Driver. [read post]
1 Apr 2009, 9:00 pm
(In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1382.)'" blank">U.S. v. [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 3:03 pm
United Way of New York State, 437 N.Y.S.2d 533 (N.Y.Sup. 1981). [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 4:59 pm
Indeed, in State v. [read post]
12 Sep 2015, 4:19 pm
See New York Times v. [read post]
30 May 2022, 3:17 am
This case, Longoria v. [read post]
18 Dec 2010, 8:35 am
United States v Martinez-Gonzalez, 686 F2d 93. [read post]
15 Feb 2020, 4:39 pm
Chatterjee v CBS, 6:19-CV-212-REW United States District Court, E.D. [read post]
20 Feb 2009, 4:30 am
A policy decision by the employer is not subject to "pre-negotiations;" the impact of that decision on unit members is negotiableMatter of County of Erie & Erie County Sheriff v State of New York Pub. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 1:00 pm
United States, which was possibly, at least in terms of pure jurisprudence, the most important case argued before the court this past session. [read post]
2 Dec 2024, 6:00 am
The New York State Division of Human Rights [DHR] dismissed Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim filed against his former employer, the Diocese of Buffalo [Diocese], concluding that the "ministerial exception"* that flows from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States deprived the DHR of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint. [read post]
2 Dec 2024, 6:00 am
The New York State Division of Human Rights [DHR] dismissed Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim filed against his former employer, the Diocese of Buffalo [Diocese], concluding that the "ministerial exception"* that flows from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States deprived the DHR of jurisdiction over Plaintiff's complaint. [read post]
7 Aug 2022, 10:03 am
May 7, 2008) (holding that the parties’ custody agreement that stated that after returning to Colombia the child could move to the United States if he so desired was insufficient to establish the petitioner consented to retention of the child in the United States). [read post]
12 May 2011, 10:17 pm
This editorial appears in today's New York Times: Gutting Class Action The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 vote in AT&T Mobility v. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 3:00 am
In United States v. [read post]
15 Sep 2017, 1:20 pm
In 1979, the United States Supreme Court decided Smith v. [read post]
