Search for: "First Bank v. Dept. of Regulatory Agencies" Results 1 - 20 of 24
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Nov 2022, 4:13 am by Bernard Bell
  The first post provided the factual background for Campaign Legal Center and described the D.C. [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Accordingly, even if comments in the evaluation referred to her protected First Amendment speech (being quoted in a newspaper article about race discrimination within the agency employing her), she could not show that she was not promoted because she exercised her First Amendment rights. [read post]
21 Jun 2018, 9:30 pm by Bobby Chen
Supreme Court ruling in Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
Iowa Assurance Corporation and its co-plaintiffs (collectively referred to as "Watson") sued the City, arguing that the ordinance created an uncompensated regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. [read post]
26 Jul 2007, 11:18 am
Wachovia Bank, N.A., 127 S.Ct. 1559, 1578 (2007), just a few months ago. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 10:21 am by Deborah Heller
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when its employees defend the agency in Section 145 litigation. [read post]
7 Aug 2016, 3:43 am by SHG
As we made clear in Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:14 pm by Brian E. Barreira
The Hearing Officer approved the appeal as to the bank accounts held in the trust, yet issued a partial denial of the appeal in part due to the Plaintiff’s home being a trust asset, based on unwarranted deference to a newly-minted regulatory interpretation suggested by the Office of Medicaid that was contrary to many years of contrary interpretation by the agency. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:14 pm by Brian E. Barreira
The Hearing Officer approved the appeal as to the bank accounts held in the trust, yet issued a partial denial of the appeal in part due to the Plaintiff’s home being a trust asset, based on unwarranted deference to a newly-minted regulatory interpretation suggested by the Office of Medicaid that was contrary to many years of contrary interpretation by the agency. [read post]