Search for: "People v. Grant" Results 6081 - 6100 of 14,925
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Nov 2023, 6:44 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Here, the excessive force claim will go to trial, but the false arrest is dismissed on immunity grounds.The case is Williams v. [read post]
3 Aug 2020, 3:12 pm by David Oscar Markus
This week’s revelations include that the justices originally considered granting only gay, but not transgender, employees civil rights protection in Bostock v. [read post]
23 May 2013, 5:51 am by Liisa Speaker
The issue of operating a vehicle while internally possessing marijuana pursuant to the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (“MMMA”) was tackled this week by the Michigan Supreme Court in its review of People v. [read post]
22 Aug 2013, 7:19 pm by Jon Gelman
"The legislation changes the way Medicare collects money from people whose negligence caused a patient to incur medical bills. [read post]
26 Mar 2019, 12:48 pm
“Disparate impact” by race means that an employment policy has a greater negative impact on people of a particular race, even if the employer did not intend the policy to be discriminatory and even if the policy does not appear obviously discriminatory on its face. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 8:37 pm by Corynne McSherry
Files: lenz.opening.public.pdfRelated Issues: Free SpeechIntellectual PropertyDMCARelated Cases: Lenz v. [read post]
25 Nov 2014, 10:26 am by Vera Ranieri
DietGoal appealed that decision, but given the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alice v. [read post]
5 Aug 2019, 8:45 am
People who get divorced often decide to relocate to begin their next chapter in life. [read post]
4 Feb 2013, 7:42 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Employment is not a government program, at least in the way that most people interpret the word "program." [read post]
5 Jun 2016, 4:06 pm
Kerry Washington plays Professor Anita Hill and and Wendell Pierce plays Judge (later Justice) Thomas.Roe v. [read post]
4 Sep 2015, 4:54 am by Timothy P. Flynn
And now, perhaps by the Chancellor's design, here comes his 15-minutes of ill-conceived fame.In denying the requested relief upon completion of the proofs, the Chancellor stated that because of the SCOTUS decision in Obergefell v Hodges, the Supreme Court now needed to clarify, "when a marriage is no longer a marriage. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 5:19 am by Mark Graber
Am I the only one who thinks all nine justices collectively wrote both opinions in Hollingsworth v. [read post]