Search for: "American Federation of Government Employees v. United States"
Results 1561 - 1580
of 1,887
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Nov 2007, 8:34 am
The SEC took "no view" on corporate requests to exclude access proposals this year after a U.S. appeals court ruled that the agency improperly allowed American International Group (AIG) to omit an access proposal by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). [read post]
3 May 2007, 1:11 am
Supreme Court's 2005 Granholm v. [read post]
10 Jul 2019, 9:51 am
In other words, a government censorship board could legally penalize a major Internet service for exhibiting any sort of political bias. [read post]
8 Mar 2019, 8:32 am
Remember United States v. [read post]
5 Jul 2010, 7:59 pm
government and state of Kentucky. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm
Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) administrative law judges (ALJs) are not “simply employees of the Federal Government” and must therefore be appointed by the agencies’ commissioners. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 6:09 am
Collectively, if not individually, these destabilizing dynamics will alter the balance of power utterly between directors and activist stockholders, between federal and state regulators, between American and foreign sources of capital, and between models of consensus and contentious corporate governance. [read post]
10 Jan 2013, 1:21 pm
Section 4376(c) defines an applicable self-insured health plan as any plan for providing accident or health coverage if any portion of the coverage is provided other than through an insurance policy, and the plan is established or maintained by either: One or more employers for the benefit of their employees or former employees; One or more employee organizations for the benefit of their members or former members; Jointly by one or more employers and one or more… [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 9:05 pm
JUNE The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, overturned Roe v. [read post]
9 Jul 2019, 9:24 am
Trump, '45th President of the United States of America, Washington, D.C.'" App'x at 54. [read post]
12 Nov 2010, 7:06 pm
United States, 517 F.3d 1319, 1330-31 (Fed. [read post]
18 Sep 2007, 12:42 pm
A third significant and publicly accessible case involves the constitutionality of a particular federal regulation of child pornography (United States v. [read post]
20 Jan 2022, 2:01 pm
Morrissey-Berru, under which employees deemed “ministers” of religious institutions are not covered by various employment and discrimination laws. [read post]
8 May 2021, 1:54 pm
Korematsu Center for Law and Equality, Hispanic National Bar Association, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Bar Association ("the nation's oldest and largest national network of predominantly African-American attorneys and judges in the United States"), National LGBT Bar Association, and National Native American Bar Association as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner—groups that few would call racist or… [read post]
28 Sep 2016, 12:07 pm
[United States v. [read post]
7 Nov 2019, 7:30 am
" Id. at 243; see also American Trucking Ass'ns, Inc. v. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 5:48 am
Nevertheless, although outcomes were not statistically different for Latin American and non-Latin American respondents, amounts claimed against Latin American states were higher - but only for non-ICSID arbitration. [read post]
31 Aug 2015, 10:50 am
I’ve recently been blogging about my new article, The Inherent-Powers Corollary: Judicial Non-Delegation and Federal Common Law, which I’ve posted to SSRN. [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 5:32 pm
Volpe, 401 US 402, 415 (1971) (decision of the Secretary of Transportation comes with a “presumption of regularity” concerning “the official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties”), and United States v. [read post]
5 Sep 2018, 5:32 pm
Volpe, 401 US 402, 415 (1971) (decision of the Secretary of Transportation comes with a “presumption of regularity” concerning “the official acts of public officers and, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties”), and United States v. [read post]
