Search for: "Short v. United States"
Results 6241 - 6260
of 10,140
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jul 2013, 5:31 am
The Supreme Court of the United States continued its hot streak in the arbitration and class action waiver arena with two recent decisions. [read post]
10 Jul 2013, 9:01 pm
The short answer is, “No,” as the Third Circuit correctly held in Conestoga Wood Specialties 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]
9 Jul 2013, 6:24 am
Moreover, in Sutton v United Airlines, Inc, the Supreme Court stated that “an employer is free to decide that physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not rise to the level of an impairment — such as one’s height, build, or singing voice — are preferable to others, just as it is free to decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 9:42 am
” United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 7:09 am
United States v. [read post]
8 Jul 2013, 12:00 am
After the court refused the motion, the plaintiff moved to certify a proposed class of "[a]ll persons residing in the United States who hold a United States copyright interest in one or more books reproduced by Google. [read post]
6 Jul 2013, 12:39 pm
In my previous post I published the dissenting views of Commissioner Pinkert, one of the six chiefs of the United States International Trade Commission (USITC, or just ITC), from the majority decision granting Samsung (unless vetoed by the United States Trade Representative or reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) an exclusion order against older iPhones and iPads. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 9:24 pm
With the recent US Supreme Court decision in United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 1:29 pm
United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2013, 9:58 am
In the case, United States v. [read post]
4 Jul 2013, 7:12 pm
With United States v. [read post]
4 Jul 2013, 10:59 am
Congresshas stated that encouraging independent living for people with disabilities is the policy of the United States government. [read post]
2 Jul 2013, 4:51 pm
In Adoptive Couple v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 1:55 pm
How fitting for Michigan to take this major first step in aligning its practices with the requirements of the United States Constitution during this 50th anniversary year of the Gideon v Wainwright decision, which guaranteed counsel to indigent defendants facing prison time. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 7:50 am
United States, 12-8505, for that upstart non-relist Paroline v. [read post]
1 Jul 2013, 7:36 am
Broad coverage of the same-sex marriage cases, United States v. [read post]
