Search for: "SEARS v. UNITED STATES" Results 61 - 80 of 247
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Nov 2008, 2:22 pm
 It was not until the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided Litton Sys., Inc. v. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 6:50 am by Amy Howe
Yesterday’s second argument was in United States v. [read post]
25 Apr 2014, 4:00 am by Malcolm Mercer
In 1983, the American Bar Association adopted the ABA Model Rules that are the basis for most of the current codes of conduct in the United States. [read post]
2 Nov 2009, 5:08 pm
I guess he wants to lock in the adverse ruling as the binding law of the Western United States. [read post]
15 May 2017, 6:36 am by John M. O'Connor
Since the early 1980s, the NLRB has vacillated back and forth on whether non-union employees are entitled to have a co-worker present during an investigatory interview that could result in discipline — a right that has long been afforded union employees pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in NLRB v. [read post]
4 Nov 2023, 4:02 pm by jonathanturley
The case could set up a major test for gun rights for the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 4:00 am
  As Wikipedia explains, [i]n the United States, removal jurisdiction refers to the right of a defendant to move a lawsuit filed in state court to the federal district court for the federal judicial district in which the state court sits. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 7:01 am by Broc Romanek
Judge Easterbrook then goes on to offer some interesting perspectives about the current state of Section 8 enforcement: Actually, the chance of a suit by the United States or the FTC is not even 1%. [read post]
29 Oct 2008, 1:28 am
General Motors Corp., 542 F.2d 445, 452-53 (7th Cir. 1976); United States v. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 11:39 am by Schachtman
 discrimination cases, such as the famous Sears case; 2. [read post]
16 Nov 2007, 1:08 am
[www.oranous.com][www.oranous.com] No. 07-5439 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States RALPH BAZE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. [read post]