Search for: "Clark v. State Personnel Board"
Results 1 - 20
of 27
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Jan 2025, 2:54 am
On the same day Steyn J conducted a PTR in the case of Clarke v Guardian News and Media. [read post]
24 Apr 2024, 5:57 am
When Trump assumed office in 2017, he and his associates did not have such well developed policies and personnel in waiting. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 2:00 am
Board of Education, we remain committed to disrupting the school to prison pipeline and ensuring that the doors of academic opportunity are open to all …. [read post]
24 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
The Taft Court exemplifies the fact that in the Court’s long history, time, context, and personnel have been decisive. [read post]
4 Dec 2022, 5:20 am
REV. 1263, 1270-71, 1288-89 (2020); Seth Kreimer, Rays Of Sunlight in a Shadow “War”: FOIA, The Abuses of Anti-Terrorism, and the Strategy of Transparency, 11 LEWIS & CLARK L. [read post]
17 Nov 2021, 11:25 am
"] From Judge Gene Pratter's opinion today in Marshall v. [read post]
1 Oct 2018, 11:13 am
Reid v. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 4:42 am
Healthy City School District Board of Education v. [read post]
3 Nov 2016, 2:32 pm
(relisted after the October 14 conference) Gloucester County School Board v. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 4:01 am
Madden v. [read post]
1 Oct 2013, 5:53 pm
--Whitman v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 5:02 pm
Davis and Personnel Director v. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:00 am
State Personnel Board, 92 Cal. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 2:00 am
State Personnel Board, 92 Cal. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 7:59 am
” United States v. [read post]
1 Jan 2012, 8:19 am
Forty-five years ago, the baseball world trained its attention on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and its impending decision in the case of Wisconsin v. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 4:07 am
After considering evidence about a conversation that husband purportedly had with one of its employees, the Office of Personnel Management affirmed, stating that husband could have elected to receive a reduced lifetime annuity with survivor benefits for a new wife only by notifying OPM of his intentions in a signed writing within two years of his marriage, 5 U.S.C. 8339(k)(2)(A). [read post]
31 Mar 2010, 3:05 pm
As we stated in State v. [read post]
21 Mar 2010, 12:50 pm
In Clark v. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 10:57 am
At its February 25 meeting, the Board will consider reversing its adoption of the protocol pending a legally required review of environmental impacts to forests and the climate. [read post]
