Search for: "Lewis v. City of Chicago" Results 121 - 140 of 214
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2008, 5:00 pm
Akron, Alabama, American, Arkansas (Little Rock), Cleveland State, Baltimore, Barry, Brooklyn, California Western, Capital, Cardozo, Case Western, Catholic (DC), Chapman, Charleston, Chicago-Kent, Cleveland State, Connecticut, Denver, DePaul, Detroit-Mercy, Duquesne, Thomas Goode Jones (Faulkner), Florida A&M, Florida International, Fordham, George Mason, George Washington, Georgetown, Georgia State, Golden Gate, Hamline, Hofstra, Houston, Indiana (Indianapolis),… [read post]
24 May 2010, 7:48 pm by Erin Miller
The Court issued another unanimous ruling in Lewis v. [read post]
30 Sep 2009, 7:02 am
Docket: 08-974 Title: Lewis et al. v. [read post]
23 May 2009, 3:43 am
City of Chicago, No. 08-974 - T VIISee issue description (+briefs links) at SCOTUSblogo SCOTUS docket hereo Noted here: SCOTUSblog (w/ brief links and noting that the Court has invited the views of the SG)2nd CircuitDuffett v. [read post]
10 May 2009, 5:53 pm
(in support of petitioners) Docket: 08-974 Title: Lewis, et al. v. [read post]
26 May 2010, 6:46 am by Adam Chandler
The New York Times editorial board cheered the Court’s decision in Lewis v. [read post]
19 Dec 2011, 4:30 am by Steve McConnell
Now Grammer goes dramatic, inhabiting the role of Mayor of Chicago, lording over the City of Big Shoulders like a mighty Colossus. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment Posted by Maximilian Muhn, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, on Thursday, February 1, 2024 Tags: Consumer Behavior, ESG, Financial disclosures, Firm disclosures, Purchase decisions Tornetta v. [read post]
2 Feb 2024, 6:30 am
Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment Posted by Maximilian Muhn, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, on Thursday, February 1, 2024 Tags: Consumer Behavior, ESG, Financial disclosures, Firm disclosures, Purchase decisions Tornetta v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 3:58 am
An employee need not be a “prevailing party” to be eligible for an attorney’s fees award under ERISA’s fee-shifting provision (§1132(g)(1)), held the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision, finding that courts may award fees and costs to a fee claimant so long as he or she has achieved “some degree of success on the merits” (May 24, 2010).Lewis v City of Chicago (Dkt No 08-974). [read post]