Search for: "People v Levelle"
Results 7701 - 7720
of 12,300
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Aug 2013, 8:27 am
In short, Marsh v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 4:04 pm
(California Building Industry Association v. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 5:27 am
Let’s face it; romances between coworkers are more common than most people (particularly married people) want to admit. [read post]
16 Aug 2013, 2:19 am
Lombardo is the author of the very important book on Buck v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 9:01 pm
One such setting is raised by an interesting and important case, Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 3:31 pm
In Hirst v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 2:51 pm
Trazo v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 2:01 pm
In Taylor v Hunt, 2013 WL 620934 (E.D.Tex.) on August 24, 2012, Petitioner Akele Mae Taylor filed an action seeking the return of her son, a minor ("KH") to Canada. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 1:28 pm
Clancy v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 12:10 pm
The final issue was whether or not DOMA impermissibly discriminated against a class of people in violation of the Fifth Amendment. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 8:10 am
That last point requires an unconventional course, such as "Elements," to be able to add value measured both by its contribution to a rigorous standard of substantive quality and a high level of relevance for the integrated program of study leading to a flexible but useful J.D. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 12:25 pm
The larger, more haunting question is whether we should accept that law enforcement officers routinely use such aggressive force to police people suspected of low-level nonviolent offenses. [read post]
14 Aug 2013, 6:00 am
The Ninth Circuit opinion in Salameh v. [read post]
13 Aug 2013, 9:30 am
I think some people dismissed my post completely just based on its title—the reasoning didn’t matter since the conclusions weren’t what those people wanted to hear. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 10:32 am
U.S. v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 10:32 am
U.S. v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:30 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:29 am
Reversing a lower court’s ruling that a 52-year old employee failed to show that he was laid off on account of his age, the Sixth Circuit found that his supervisor’s explanation about why the company retained a younger employee, in which he stated that he “had an opportunity to bring the next generation in, so that’s what we decided to do,” and that the company had a succession plan where “you bring in younger people, train them, so when the older… [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 8:28 am
An amendment should specifically overturn Kohl v. [read post]
12 Aug 2013, 2:00 am
The Hughes v. [read post]
