Search for: "Grant v. Parker" Results 621 - 640 of 730
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jul 2009, 5:50 pm by Jason Krebs
RETAIL CONSIGNEES FOR FSIS RECALL 034-2009 (EXPANDED) FSIS has reason to believe that the following retail location(s) received assorted beef products that have been recalled by JBS Swift Beef Company. [read post]
18 Jun 2009, 12:55 am
DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKCriminal Practice Rule 4 Invoked in Habeas Denial; Applicant's Own Submissions Demonstrated Lack of Merit Parker v. [read post]
29 May 2009, 2:18 pm by Walsh & Walsh, P.C.
Donnelley Corp. (2nd Cir. 2004) 368 F.3d 123, upholding summary judgment in an employment discrimination case; Parker v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 2:41 pm
Parker was selected for her role as the lead prosecutor in the successful 2008 case of United States v. [read post]
22 May 2009, 3:56 am
See Huddart Parker Ltd v The Ship "Mill Hill" (1950) 81 CLR 502 at 508 - 509; Oceanic Sun Line Special Shipping Co Inc v Fay (1988) 165 CLR 197; FAI General Insurance v Ocean Marine Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association; Akai Pty Ltd v People's Insurance Co; Incitec Ltd v Alkimos Shipping Corporation and Anor; Owners of cargo on vessel Eleftheria v Owners of Ship Eleftheria [1969] 2 All ER 641 at 645. [read post]
26 Jan 2009, 5:55 pm
Parker Hannifin (1st Cir., 2005) noted that the FMLA prohibits employers from taking certain actions against employees: In addition to the grant of substantive rights, the statute sets forth a list of prohibited acts at 29 U.S.C. [read post]
24 Jan 2009, 10:26 am
Biological Paternity Isn't Determinative - Cornelio v. [read post]
22 Jan 2009, 7:55 am
In one such case, Allcare Dental Management LLC v. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 2:57 pm
Attorney Gen. of the US, No. 07-2509 Petition for review of a BIA order finding petitioner removable for having committed an aggravated felony, contrary to an IJ's finding and grant of cancellation of removal, is granted where the BIA erred in failing to apply the modified categorical approach set forth in applicable Supreme Court precedent, and thus it erred when it considered petitioner's sentencing document to determine whether he had been convicted of an aggravated… [read post]