Search for: "Re v. PERS"
Results 81 - 100
of 7,341
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Mar 2024, 7:00 pm
That’s because unless cities have somewhere for displaced unhoused residents to go, the 2018 appellate case Martin v. [read post]
11 Mar 2024, 6:55 am
OSHA, 595 U.S. 109, 117, 118 (2022) (per curiam) (twice quoting In re MCP No. 165, 20 F. 4th 264, 272, 274 (6th Cir. 2021) (Sutton, C.J., dissenting from denial of initial hearing en banc)). [read post]
10 Mar 2024, 12:57 pm
Davis, 454 U.S. 370, 375 (1982) (per curiam). [read post]
9 Mar 2024, 12:10 pm
[Cite to Nunes v. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 6:02 pm
Like most Americans, I believe Roe v. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 2:12 pm
With just under 7% of positions sitting empty, we’re no longer in uncharted territory. [read post]
8 Mar 2024, 7:01 am
Unfortunately, denial of an 8(a) applicant because of a lack of potential for success is not a denial reason that can be appealed per 13 C.F.R. [read post]
7 Mar 2024, 9:05 pm
The agency explained that the ruling in Dobbs v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 7:16 am
Term Limits v. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 7:16 am
Term Limits v. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 1:51 pm
It appears to us that Roberts assigned himself the Court's per curiam opinion in Trump v. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 8:13 am
” Perhaps, then, those arguments will be re-consigned to the obscure corners of implausible scholarship from whence they came. [read post]
5 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
I was not surprised by the outcome or even the unanimity of the result in Trump v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 4:04 pm
From Honeyfund.com inc v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 12:47 pm
Supreme Curt issued their opinion (per curiam) in Trump v. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 8:46 am
The majority, in a per curiam opinion, makes four primary moves. [read post]
4 Mar 2024, 4:00 am
But who can forget former Justice Scheinkman’s decision In re Piekos (discussed here), which [read post]
29 Feb 2024, 4:41 pm
Supreme Court ruling in Batson v. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 7:08 pm
RE 38,551 and U.S. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 3:53 pm
The question before the court in Garland v. [read post]