Search for: "Cox v. State"
Results 441 - 460
of 1,039
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jun 2015, 8:13 am
Cox, Case No. 90233-0 (Wa. [read post]
1 Jun 2015, 4:00 am
., Oxford University Press 2015)).Michael John DeBoer, Legislating Morality Progressively -- The Contraceptive Coverage Mandate, Religious Freedom, and Public Health Policy and Ethics, (Journal of Law and Health, Vol. 28, p. 62, 2015).Doug Coulson, British Imperialism, the Indian Independence Movement, and the Racial Eligibility Provisions of the Naturalization Act: United States v. [read post]
19 May 2015, 6:30 am
Citing Guggenheimer v Ginzburg, 43 NY2d 268, the court further ruled that Supreme Court had also properly granted that branch of the employee organization’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint seeking to recover damages for discrimination "for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7). [read post]
15 May 2015, 3:00 am
Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Eugene Volokh reported on the Second Circuit’s recent opinion in United States v. [read post]
11 May 2015, 10:19 am
The second, EEOC v. [read post]
11 May 2015, 7:51 am
In 2012, in Watts v. [read post]
5 May 2015, 8:42 am
The court also references the New Jersey state court Donato case from 2005. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 4:57 pm
Cox denied R.G. [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 2:42 pm
Wheaton Van Lines Inc. et al v. [read post]
2 Apr 2015, 4:20 am
Preska, Chief United States District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, rule [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 9:03 am
<> Case Update: Michigan v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 12:42 am
US states are considering tightening regulations. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 8:05 am
Cox 14-531Issue: Whether this Court’s decision in Martinez v. [read post]
10 Mar 2015, 11:55 pm
As in Hammon v. [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 1:14 pm
Case citation: Music Group Macao Commercial Offshore Limited et al. v. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 6:43 am
Cox, 2015 U.S. [read post]
1 Mar 2015, 9:32 am
Cox, 343 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). [read post]
27 Feb 2015, 7:30 am
*A United States District Court judge granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, holding that Matthews had spoken as a public employee and not as a citizen and thus his speech was not protected by the First Amendment.Citing Cox v Warwick Valley Central School District, 654 F3d 267, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals said that the test it applied in cases in which a plaintiff asserts a First Amendment retaliation claim requires the plaintiff to establish that: (1)… [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 1:25 pm
In Watts v. [read post]
23 Jan 2015, 9:30 am
As stated in Moore’s Federal Practice, “The identity of class members must be ascertainable by reference to objective criteria. [read post]
