Search for: "U. S. v. Doe"
Results 81 - 100
of 5,553
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Feb 2013, 9:01 pm
Ohio, Jenkins v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 12:15 pm
In today’s case (Longford v. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 4:00 am
Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that DOE was entitled to make the teaching assignment challenged by Vyas and DOE’s evaluation of Vyas based on her performance in that assignment “does not give rise to an inference that the resulting U-ratings were arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith, nor were the U-ratings issued in violation of lawful procedure. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 10:17 am
Berryhill, 587 U. [read post]
23 Jul 2019, 2:00 am
Wilke, 588 U. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 4:00 am
”The Appellate Division annulled Teacher's termination and the summer 2011 U-rating and then remanded the matter to DOE for completion of its final review of the second U-rating for the 2011-2012 school year [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 6:46 am
"[U]nlike the patent-eligible claims at issue in [Enfish, LLC v. [read post]
20 Apr 2021, 10:08 am
Supreme Court Ruling in Torres v. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 6:54 am
DOS v. [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 1:39 pm
S. 753 (1967); Quill Corp. v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 10:20 am
S. 192 (2007); Begay v. [read post]
28 Apr 2007, 6:55 am
An unpublished opinion from from the United States District Court from the Northern District of Ohio called Jerman v Carlisle, McNellie et al at 2006 U S Dist LEXIS 85339 held that a debtor's demand for verification of the debt does not have to be in writing in order to be effective. [read post]
25 May 2012, 1:24 pm
Freeman v. [read post]
24 Nov 2024, 2:54 pm
S. 743, 750 (quoting Allentown Mack Sales & Service, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Jan 2016, 9:38 am
See Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 8:56 am
(1) The Court does not resolve the parties’ disagreement over Quon’s privacy expectation. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 5:11 am
" 472 U. [read post]
22 Apr 2021, 2:15 pm
In a unanimous decision, the U. [read post]
13 Jan 2022, 1:16 pm
It does not. [read post]
27 May 2007, 7:48 pm
In applying the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, it held that an sovereign's immunity waiver for a specific forum abroad does not extend to a U.S. court. The court examined an implied-waiver exception and a commercial-activity exception. Generally, a foreign state is not immune from suit when it has waived such immunity or the suit is based on certain forms of commercial activity. The court based its decision on… [read post]
