Search for: "Grant v. U. S"
Results 681 - 700
of 3,847
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Sep 2018, 1:39 pm
We granted certiorari, 583 U. [read post]
3 Jun 2009, 4:10 am
Court vacates jury's determination that employee was laid off because of her political affiliationMiller v County of Nassau, 2009 NY Slip Op 31178(U), May 11, 2009, Supreme Court, New York County, Docket Number: 28936/92, Judge: Ute W. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 5:41 pm
Independence Tube Corp., 467 U. [read post]
17 May 2012, 11:56 am
(See rule 8.1105(e)(1) [“[u]nless otherwise ordered . . ., an opinion is no longer considered published if the Supreme Court grants review”].) [read post]
4 May 2020, 8:47 am
Today, the Supreme Court granted review in Edwards v. [read post]
1 Oct 2008, 9:10 pm
United States, 517 U. [read post]
18 Dec 2013, 9:55 am
In one such case, Wolfe v. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 1:45 pm
New York, 392 U. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 9:34 am
The Court’s decision in Manus Medical, LLC v. [read post]
20 May 2021, 7:01 am
Caniglia v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 2:23 pm
Graham, 383 U. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 10:00 pm
V. [read post]
9 Jul 2020, 7:58 am
” 116 Stat. 2178, 6 U. [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:19 pm
We granted certiorari, 467 U.S. 1214, 104 S.Ct. 2655, 81 L.Ed.2d 362 (1984), and we now reverse. 2 * In February 1977, shortly after leaving the White House, former President Gerald R. [read post]
9 Aug 2023, 8:27 am
The challenged claims here are distinguishable from McRO v. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 12:00 am
” Id., citing Chen v. [read post]
11 Aug 2016, 12:00 am
” Id., citing Chen v. [read post]
2 Apr 2024, 8:08 am
Supreme Court granted review. [read post]
7 Mar 2019, 3:58 am
Schwartzman v Pliskin, Rubano, Baum & Vitulli 2019 NY Slip Op 30419(U) January 14, 2019 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 714510/2017 Judge: Joseph Risi takes the position that all the above are required. [read post]
30 Apr 2023, 2:06 pm
The United States Supreme Court vacated the affirmance in June 2022, when it granted Uber’s petition for writ of certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. [read post]
