Search for: "Davis v. Doe"
Results 81 - 100
of 3,804
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Feb 2016, 5:40 am
This is the Court’s first exclusionary rule case since Davis v. [read post]
16 Oct 2011, 2:28 pm
Davis v. [read post]
21 Aug 2012, 2:56 pm
Eugene Davis, Judge Jerry E. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 9:51 am
Supreme Court case, Perry v. [read post]
7 Oct 2007, 6:40 am
See United States v. [read post]
31 Aug 2014, 6:00 am
In Davis v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 7:34 am
Then the case can go the way of Herrera [v. [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 12:43 pm
Because there is some uncertainty about which court has jurisdiction over this appeal, Davis’ lawyers also tried to appeal to the 11th Circuit, which ruled that it does not have jurisdiction. [read post]
27 Jun 2017, 6:40 am
The US Supreme Court [official website] on Monday held [opinion, PDF] in Davila v. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 3:28 am
App. 127, 189 N.W.2d 879 (1971), reversed on other grounds, 389 Mich. 249, 205 N.W.2d 431 (1973); Davis v. [read post]
26 Jul 2011, 3:39 pm
So, if your association does not have nor own any common area, and the areas that the association does maintain are owned exclusively by the owners and no other owner has an easement to use that property, then it is very possible that your association is not subject to nor required to comply with the Davis-Stirling Act. [read post]
3 Mar 2013, 8:43 am
” United States v. [read post]
27 Dec 2016, 3:03 pm
We conclude that it does, and we affirm the judgment of the district court. [read post]
29 Jan 2010, 2:11 pm
Citing Fico, Inc. v. [read post]
12 Feb 2015, 2:15 pm
The injunction comes in Strawser v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 1:52 pm
See Donovan v. [read post]
29 May 2019, 1:45 pm
Case citation: Doe v. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 6:58 am
Co. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2021, 7:59 am
Does. [read post]
29 Jul 2011, 3:58 am
An appointing authority does not have the authority to take unilateral action to dismiss an individual because of alleged pre-employment misconductUmlauf v Safir, 286 AD2d 267 Clearly, an employee may be subjected to disciplinary action for his or her off-duty misconduct that adversely affects his or her employer. [read post]
