Search for: "Department of Transportation v. King" Results 61 - 80 of 150
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Mar 2016, 7:29 am by Earl Drott
(Instead, the county averred that the property was controlled by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT), a separate governmental entity, at the time in question.) [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm by John Elwood
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. [read post]
14 Jan 2016, 11:43 am by John Elwood
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, 15-141, which might have shed light on the Boston transit system’s ability to bar pro-Israel ads although it had previously run allegedly pro-Palestinian ads. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 3:30 am by Christopher Walker
One decision, however, also grapples with the fringe: Department of Transportation v. [read post]
26 Oct 2015, 12:04 pm by Elina Saxena, Quinta Jurecic
On the other hand, USA Today tells us that harsh conditions over Syria have led “nearly one-third of Russian attack planes and half of its transport aircraft” to be grounded at any given time. [read post]
19 Oct 2015, 8:46 pm by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer
Where potable water cannot be transported to the worker by motorized vehicle, the Final Rule allows the employer to rely on natural sources of water provided that it provides the worker with the means to test and render that water potable. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 8:29 pm by Wolfgang Demino
  As the Court has shown us time and again in its immunity jurisprudence, the government can do no wrong, because the government -- like the King -- is sovereign. [read post]
12 Mar 2015, 3:18 am by Amy Howe
Mortgage Bankers Association, holding that amendments to interpretative rules do not require notice-and-comment rulemaking, and Department of Transportation v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 6:04 am by Amy Howe
  Elsewhere at Bloomberg View, Cass Sunstein looks at both Perez and Monday’s other decision in Department of Transportation v. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 7:18 am by Amy Howe
Wednesday’s oral arguments in King v. [read post]