Search for: "The Entire Sixth Circuit Panel of Federal Officers"
Results 61 - 80
of 122
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2012, 7:33 pm
The district court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment, and two judges on a three-judge panel at the Sixth Circuit affirmed. [read post]
9 Feb 2012, 9:37 am
” The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court (and the Sixth Circuit) that the term “interpreters” in the statute includes, as the panel put it, “costs for services required to interpret either live speech or written documents. [read post]
19 Nov 2011, 7:55 am
” (15 n.3) This contrasts with the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
5 Nov 2006, 8:58 pm
Mitchell, Sixth Circuit. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 2:00 pm
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. applies to preliminary injunctive relief sought in a petition under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act, as a majority of circuits have held, or whether an entirely different and profoundly deferential standard applies, as the courts below held. [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 1:24 pm
Padilla appealed to the Fourth Circuit. [read post]
2 Feb 2015, 2:56 pm
Likewise, under the two other First Amendment tests commonly applied by federal courts to the right of publicity — the Second Circuit’s test in Rogers v. [read post]
6 Apr 2020, 4:23 pm
A District Court issued a TRO limiting the application of this to abortion clinics, and today the Sixth Circuit (in Pre-Term Cleveland v. [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 8:46 am
If you’re reading a blog post that is entirely devoted to cases on the Supreme Court’s docket that haven’t even been granted yet, chances are you’re a law nerd. [read post]
5 Mar 2013, 1:01 pm
James, 12-11, both one-time relists out of the increasingly indistinguishable Sixth and Ninth Circuits. [read post]
6 Sep 2018, 8:03 am
The group contends that a March 2018 decision from the Sixth Circuit, which finds employers are barred from discriminating against transgender workers, was an improper expansion of the definition of “sex” in Title VII—an error of “national importance” the Supreme Court must correct. [read post]
9 Sep 2021, 2:42 pm
The entire case is speculative. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm
Georgia Pacific Consumer Products, LP 13-41Issue: Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow the holdings of the Eighth and Sixth Circuits involving identical trademark litigation and not giving those rulings preclusive effect – and doing so in ways that disregard the district courts’ inherent authority to consider preclusion and do serious violence to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and the proper standards other circuits routinely… [read post]
23 Aug 2022, 5:01 am
In October 1952, a unanimous panel of the U.S. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm
NanceDocket: 09-1115Issue(s): (1) Whether a police officer may be held liable on a claim under 42 U.S.C. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 8:42 am
Simon Lazarus, then of Arnold & Porter, wrote to the Solicitor General that the amicus brief would inevitably be seen as undercutting the SG’s brief for the federal defendants, and that if the dual-filing practice were to become the norm, the stature of the Department and the “unique status” of the SG’s Office “would necessarily be diminished. [read post]
8 Dec 2011, 1:15 pm
Huff, 11-208, in which a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity to two police officers who entered a family’s home without a warrant while investigating what turned out to be a false rumor that the family’s son was planning a school shooting; the petition alleges a split about whether Brigham City v. [read post]
9 Oct 2014, 8:46 am
After the federal district and appellate courts rejected the motel owners’ challenge to the ordinance, a Ninth Circuit en banc panel reversed, finding that the ordinance facially violated the Fourth Amendment. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am
The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, then vacated the opinion of the panel and reheard the case. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 9:43 am
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/37238-0.11.cor.doc.pdf Federal Law Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: United States v. [read post]
