Search for: "Bryant v. Bryant"
Results 81 - 100
of 1,091
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Oct 2021, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court ruling, finding it to have correctly determined that the District's discontinuation of IRMAA reimbursements violated the Act and thus had properly granted the Plaintiffs' petition. * The purpose of the moratorium statute was to tie retiree benefits to active employee benefits so that retirees could benefit from the collective bargaining power of the active employees. ** See Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango… [read post]
10 Oct 2021, 9:03 pm
See Coleman v. [read post]
9 Oct 2021, 8:47 am
Bryant. [read post]
30 Sep 2021, 6:38 am
In United States v. [read post]
29 Sep 2021, 6:40 am
This is one of them.The case is Bryant v. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 7:00 am
The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court ruling, finding it to have correctly determined that the District's discontinuation of IRMAA reimbursements violated the Act and thus had properly granted the Plaintiffs' petition. * The purpose of the moratorium statute was to tie retiree benefits to active employee benefits so that retirees could benefit from the collective bargaining power of the active employees. ** See Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango… [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 7:00 am
The Appellate Division sustained the Supreme Court ruling, finding it to have correctly determined that the District's discontinuation of IRMAA reimbursements violated the Act and thus had properly granted the Plaintiffs' petition. * The purpose of the moratorium statute was to tie retiree benefits to active employee benefits so that retirees could benefit from the collective bargaining power of the active employees. ** See Matter of Bryant v Board of Educ., Chenango… [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 3:30 am
United States v. [read post]
6 Sep 2021, 9:03 am
In Barr v. [read post]
26 Aug 2021, 6:19 am
In this article, Bryant v Parkland School Division, 2021 ABQB 391, a case in which the plaintiffs sought more money on termination than what their contracts provided, is discussed. [read post]
7 Aug 2021, 9:11 pm
People v. [read post]
6 Aug 2021, 7:46 am
Bryant, 996 F.3d 1243, 1260 (11th Cir. 2021) (Brasher, J.). [read post]
20 Jul 2021, 9:17 am
Under U.S. v. [read post]
15 Jul 2021, 2:54 pm
In its June 21, 2021 decision in Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 2:14 pm
Bryant v. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 1:16 pm
TeleCheck Servs., Inc., 923 F. 3d 458, 469 (CA6 2019) ("Article III standing may draw a linebetween private and public rights"); Bryant v. [read post]
19 May 2021, 4:58 pm
First, he contended that the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in Moore v. [read post]
12 May 2021, 6:01 am
Criminal procedure — Voir dire — Kazadi Convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of first degree murder and related offenses, Bryant Whitaker, appellant, presents for our review a single question: whether the court abused its discretion in “refusing to ask [certain] voir dire questions requested by the defense. [read post]
9 May 2021, 3:52 pm
This time the case is United States v. [read post]
23 Apr 2021, 3:30 am
Bryant, 655 F.3d 232, 249-50 (3d Cir. 2011). [read post]
