Search for: "The United States, Petitioner"
Results 1441 - 1460
of 8,956
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Nov 2016, 7:12 pm
The beneficiary is from China and obtained her Master of Nursing Degree in the United States. [read post]
20 Jan 2016, 7:21 pm
CASE: PERM Labor Certification EMPLOYER: Taekwondo (Martial Arts) School BENEFICIARY: Korean LOCATION: Cleveland, Ohio Our client is a former Taekwondo athlete, and currently studies in the United States. [read post]
3 Dec 2017, 6:54 pm
CASE: I-140 (EB-3) EMPLOYER: Taekwondo (Martial Arts) SchoolBENEFICIARY: KoreanLOCATION: Ohio Our client is a former Taekwondo athlete, who currently studies in the United States. [read post]
6 Nov 2017, 9:00 pm
CASE: PERM Labor Certification EMPLOYER: Taekwondo (Martial Arts) SchoolBENEFICIARY: KoreanLOCATION: Ohio Our client is a former Taekwondo athlete who currently studies in the United States. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 10:00 pm
This, said the petitioner, notwithstanding the effect of the “opt out” Protocol for Poland and the United Kingdom, does function as an interpretative provision which does not detract from the obligation of the United Kingdom to respect the rights set out in the Charter. [read post]
3 May 2015, 5:08 pm
” According to the affidavit of the Director of Services to the Children Unit of the Nassau County Department of Social Services, the Nassau County Department of Social Services had no foster children in petitioners' foster home when respondent chose to close the home. [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 7:28 am
United States 17-5165 Issue: Whether Richardson v. [read post]
2 Jul 2015, 8:06 am
Last Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States released their opinion in Obergefell v. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 10:26 am
According to Section 3020, “a CBA negotiated between respondent and the United Federation of Teachers, petitioners’ union, can modify or waive the 3020-a procedure. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 12:35 pm
The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United States v. [read post]
14 Nov 2014, 5:12 pm
The United States Government as a creditor does not ask for payment but asks only that its lien by attachment be established. [read post]
11 Apr 2019, 9:15 am
In United States v. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 7:44 am
An MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances owned or operated by a State, municipality, association, public body (including special districts under State law), Indian tribe or authorized Indian tribal organization, or designated and approved management agency that discharges into waters of the United States; which is “designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water;” and is not a combined sewer or part of a Publicly Owned Treatment… [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 12:27 pm
On Tuesday, four women serving in the armed forces filed suit against the Department of Defense and the United States Army in the U.S. [read post]
9 Jan 2012, 10:21 am
Disclosure: Pacific Legal Foundation represents the petitioners; I do PLF's work in Hawaii. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 5:50 pm
The court ordered the United States to respond almost immediately, and earlier today, it timely filed its opposition brief. [read post]
23 Mar 2008, 11:14 pm
" (p. 17) But here's what is curious: In Munaf the U.S. government contends that U.S. troops that are detaining petitioners do not hold them "'in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States,' " as subsection (c)(1) of the federal habeas statute requires, for the reason that those troops are detaining petitioners "pursuant to international authority"; that is, the coalition known as Multi-National Force… [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 9:49 am
United States, No. 11-597 (cert. granted Apr. 2, 2012), a case from the Federal Circuit that we've been watching. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 5:32 pm
Third party challengers can seemingly inflict stock-price drop through an efficient patent invalidation mechanism provided at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, while betting against the targeted company’s stock price. [read post]
21 Mar 2015, 4:13 am
Ohio, No. 1:11–CV–01048, 2011 WL 4007719, at *2 (N.D.Ohio Sept. 9, 2011)(explaining that the “ ‘Universal Declaration of Humans Rights’ “ … and “ ‘Rights of Indigenous Peoples 1994’ … are not recognized by United States courts as legally binding”). [read post]
