Search for: "Grant v. District of Columbia"
Results 581 - 600
of 2,551
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 May 2020, 2:25 pm
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in a case brought by Freedom Watch and Laura Loomer against Google. [read post]
28 May 2020, 2:05 pm
Disney moved to dismiss, which was granted by the district court on the grounds that “The Moodsters are not protectable by copyright. [read post]
27 May 2020, 8:29 am
Courts of Appeals for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th and District of Columbia Circuits; (2) whether, under the state-created-danger doctrine, due process is violated when first responders fail to provide any treatment to a person suffering from severe hypothermia, and instead erroneously declare him dead; and (3) whether the 8th Circuit erred in dismissing this state-created-danger case on qualified immunity grounds. [read post]
22 May 2020, 4:52 pm
IndiaAshutosh Dubey v. [read post]
22 May 2020, 6:00 am
As NSO Group notes in its reply brief, Republic of Philippines v. [read post]
18 May 2020, 1:52 pm
District Court Judge John Gleeson—to advise him as to whether he should grant the department’s request to dismiss the case. [read post]
16 May 2020, 4:36 am
” Hong KongChor Ki Kwong David v. [read post]
15 May 2020, 8:17 am
See District of Columbia v. [read post]
14 May 2020, 6:55 am
" Rice v. [read post]
12 May 2020, 3:14 pm
The first episode began with the appointment of former deputy district attorney Lola Carmichael’s judicial appointment; surprising no one, she quickly becomes an interventionist, activist judge who finds herself more than once in some difficulty as a result. [read post]
11 May 2020, 11:03 am
We should know next Monday which of them is plenary grant material. [read post]
9 May 2020, 10:33 pm
Attorney for the District of Columbia. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch.… [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch.… [read post]
1 May 2020, 12:32 pm
See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch.… [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch.… [read post]
30 Apr 2020, 4:19 pm
SpainDario v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 9:16 am
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, sitting en banc, in two cases concerning Congress’s Article III standing to sue over alleged executive branch illegality: Committee on the Judiciary v. [read post]
29 Apr 2020, 9:14 am
Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine–see District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. [read post]
