Search for: "Brown, Etc. v. District Court, Etc." Results 121 - 140 of 156
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2017, 3:19 pm by Arthur F. Coon
”  That proposed section contains an incorrect and misleading statement of the law regarding environmental baseline issues, in conflict with holdings of the Fifth District’s recent decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. [read post]
6 Nov 2008, 10:09 am
Not only are these school relatively more segregated than those in the Deep South, the level of racial isolation in them actually mirrors the degree of segregation in the South a decade after the celebrated, but disobeyed, Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 4:00 am
Jan. 29, 2009)Remanding bench verdict against 56yo rejected applicant's age discrim claim; District Court failed to evaluate statement preferring "younger educated people" as possible direct evidence>11th Circuit>> Birdyshaw v. [read post]
29 Dec 2010, 12:54 pm by Bexis
  At quite some length, the court agreed with the position taken by this blog that FDA warning letters, being tentative, preliminary, not final agency action, etc., can’t collaterally estop anybody from contesting anything. [read post]
22 Jul 2005, 2:15 pm
District Court, to which the defendants removed the case from state court, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 5:34 pm
Even the Supreme Court has gotten in on the act with its 2011 decision in Brown v. [read post]
26 Apr 2012, 12:48 pm by We Don't Judge - We Defend
They can search your pockets, and belongings that you are carrying, etc. [read post]
16 Nov 2011, 12:42 am
A terrible joke for a serious issue that has plagued the US farming community and US courts for years – most recently in an appeal from the Southern District of Indiana to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") in the case of Monsanto v Bowman. [read post]
23 Apr 2011, 4:49 am by RT
(Though I think all these were reversed/dissents—V’s Secret dissent, Charbucks district court; Beebe says Nikepal required a showing of effect on distinctiveness, but it didn’t seem to matter.) [read post]
1 Apr 2011, 8:03 am by stevemehta
Civil Action No. 09-1931 (RMU), No. 12., 13 United States District Court, District of Columbia. [read post]