Search for: "United States v. Burden"
Results 5921 - 5940
of 9,848
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2013, 8:27 am
This past March, the Supreme Court considered in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
Why the Hobby Lobby Reasoning Is Dangerous to Hobby Lobby’s Bottom Line and to the United States The Hobby Lobby reasoning is also a hazard for for-profit companies, as Chick-Fil-A has learned the hard way. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 10:38 am
In Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 4:40 am
" A short time later the United States Supreme Court decided Ricci v DeStefano (557 US 557), holding that, "before an employer can engage in intentional discrimination for the asserted purpose of avoiding or remedying an unintentional disparate impact, the employer must have a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious discriminatory action. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 2:08 pm
Thirty-five years ago the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the context of higher education a state university that uses race as one of its admissions criteria must show that the use is "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest." [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 2:08 pm
Thirty-five years ago the Supreme Court of the United States held that in the context of higher education a state university that uses race as one of its admissions criteria must show that the use is "narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 1:25 pm
The United States Supreme Court reversed and held that the Florida Supreme Court erred on both grounds. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 10:00 am
Nassar, the United States Supreme Court ruled there is a higher burden for an employee to prove his or her employer retaliated than to prove it discriminated under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 6:49 am
In Washington v. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 6:47 am
Some clues as to the ITC's rationale were previously provided by the parties' submissions to the United States Trade Representative (USTR).Now it's time for the complete picture. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 6:36 am
Guido v. [read post]
7 Jul 2013, 11:39 am
By 1975, EPA and OSHA had promulgated regulations that curtailed the use of asbestos, of all types, in the United States. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 2:38 pm
’” Then, relying upon the Supreme Court’s brand-new decision in United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 12:45 pm
This is the requirement of the Padilla v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 9:03 am
Further, the Court decided McQuiggin v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 6:00 am
United States, 342 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir.2003). [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 11:05 am
First articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 11:04 am
Ball State University (which we blogged on here), the United States Supreme Court finished employees off with the 5-4 decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 10:09 am
Gambling machines STATE OF TEXAS v. $1,760.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, 37 "8" LINER MACHINES, No. 12-0718 Per Curiam The Court agreed with the State that certain “eight-liner” machines qualified as gambling equipment for purposes of civil forfeiture. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 8:09 am
There shouldn’t be uncovered states and covered states; there should be the United States. [read post]
