Search for: "GOLDSTEIN v. GOLDSTEIN" Results 601 - 620 of 2,308
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Dec 2013, 4:44 am by Amy Howe
EME Homer City Generation and American Lung Association v. [read post]
17 May 2013, 7:17 am by Allison Trzop
Goldstein, P.C., the firm also represented the respondents in Bush v. [read post]
16 May 2011, 8:56 am by Kali Borkoski
  [Disclosure:  Goldstein, Howe & Russell represents the petitioners in Freeman.] [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 11:22 am by Moria Miller
Congress is actually reaching out to mandate activity,” Barnett explained.Barnett argued that the scope of President Obama’s health care plan extends “outside the line that the Supreme Court has previously drawn” in cases such U.S v. [read post]
21 Jun 2013, 7:28 am by Allison Trzop
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, represented the American Association of Law Schools as an amicus in Fisher v. [read post]
3 May 2013, 6:11 am by Rachel Sachs
Perry (the challenge to Proposition 8) and United States v. [read post]
18 Feb 2015, 12:48 pm by Carolyn E. Wright
GOLDSTEIN, COPYRIGHT § 9.4 at 162 (1989). [read post]
21 May 2007, 4:24 pm
(Tom Goldstein's post analyzing the effect of the 2008 election on the Supreme Court is available here.) [read post]
6 May 2015, 3:36 am by Amy Howe
Commentary on last week’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. [read post]
27 Nov 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 AD3d 18, the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action for hostile work environment under New York City's City Human Rights Law* because it does not allege that Defendants' actions occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 7:23 pm
 Admittedly our last dozen verdicts have all had USA v. [read post]
27 Nov 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Ji Sun Jennifer Kim v Goldberg, Weprin, Finkel, Goldstein, LLP, 120 AD3d 18, the Appellate Division opined that Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action for hostile work environment under New York City's City Human Rights Law* because it does not allege that Defendants' actions occurred under circumstances that gave rise to an inference of discrimination. [read post]