Search for: "Robbins v Robbins"
Results 201 - 220
of 554
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Dec 2007, 7:34 am
Robbins” (available here). [read post]
30 Nov 2018, 1:04 pm
In the 1989 Colorado Court of Appeals case of Wilson v. [read post]
2 Apr 2019, 2:00 am
Both Auer v. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 1:30 pm
., v. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 5:42 am
Robbins, generally requiring deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own guidance. [read post]
14 Apr 2017, 5:25 am
An interesting court decision in a university sexual misconduct case, decided last week by the New York intermediate appellate court (though quite possibly eventually headed to the New York high court), Matter of Haug v. [read post]
26 Oct 2016, 7:16 am
Robbins doctrine of judicial deference to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. [read post]
2 Oct 2019, 6:43 am
Corp. v. [read post]
3 Aug 2016, 4:29 pm
In Gonzales v. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 10:57 am
Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 9:44 am
See also Robbins (Inc.) v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 8:11 am
Robbins, 551 U. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 11:36 am
Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997)Bowles v. [read post]
4 Nov 2007, 2:16 pm
Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) [read post]
3 Nov 2013, 6:15 am
Professor Green, however, has given a thorough rebuttal to Robbins’ partisan and ad hominem criticisms, which suggest that it was Robbins who did not know what he was talking about. [read post]
4 Jun 2007, 1:08 am
Robbins NASSAU COUNTYCriminal PracticeVTL §1163(d) Mandates Signaling Upon Changing Lanes; Violation of Statute Provides Basis for Stop People v. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 6:10 pm
Grutter v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 1:25 am
Robbins, in which the Court held that an agency’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulations is entitled to deference (a holding that relies on the Court’s pre-APA decision in Bowles v. [read post]
22 Jun 2012, 3:22 pm
Robbins, 519 U. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 8:34 am
Robbins (1997), in which the Court deferred to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulation, or was prohibited by the intervening decision in United States v Mead Corporation (2001). [read post]
