Search for: "Johnson v. School District No. 1" Results 61 - 80 of 403
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jul 2011, 8:33 am by Kevin Johnson - Guest
Johnson, Dean of the UC Davis School of Law and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o Studies. [read post]
2 Jul 2007, 9:53 am
Seattle School District rejected race-conscious school assignment programs, its rationale about the use of race will extend beyond schools to employment and other areas. [read post]
18 Oct 2013, 7:28 am by Joel R. Brandes
After determining the lodestar, the court must then consider the applicability and weight of the twelve factors set forth in Johnson v. [read post]
21 Feb 2010, 5:45 pm by Anna Christensen
Below, Harvard Law School’s Jesenka Mrdjenovic previews United States v. [read post]
29 Sep 2013, 10:00 am by Venkat
Johnson County CCSending Politically Charged Emails Does Not Support Disturbing the Peace Conviction -- State v. [read post]
4 Nov 2019, 8:50 am by Joel R. Brandes
In Poretti v Baez, 2019 WL 5587151(E.D.N.Y., 2019) the district court denied the application of the Petitioner for the return of his daughters to Mexico. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 7:31 am by Lauren Gilbert - Guest
District Judge Bolton enjoined enforcement of various provisions, a decision later upheld by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. [read post]
12 Jan 2018, 8:19 am by MBettman
Smith and Hirt represented the school district and related defendants in the underlying employment discrimination case. [read post]
9 Feb 2024, 9:30 pm by ernst
"  May 1, 2024 - 5:30 pm at Zoom. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 A school district’s discretion to remove material from its collection, however, must be exercised within “fundamental constitutional safeguards” (Campbell v St. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 A school district’s discretion to remove material from its collection, however, must be exercised within “fundamental constitutional safeguards” (Campbell v St. [read post]