Search for: "State v. Burden" Results 141 - 160 of 24,769
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2024, 7:00 am by Ezra Rosser
Energy burden affects millions of low-income households in the United States and contributes to home energy insecurity-experiencing or being at risk of utility disconnection. [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 6:07 am by Marty Lederman
(The United States is not a State Party to the treaty, but most European nations are, including the UK, France, and Germany.) [read post]
15 Sep 2024, 9:11 am by Eric Goldman
Longarzo * DMCA’s Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law Claims–Stevens v. [read post]
13 Sep 2024, 9:05 pm by Mikaela Wells
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. [read post]
13 Sep 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
If the employer articulates such a reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show at the third step either that “the employer’s stated justification for its adverse action was nothing but a pretext for discrimination,” or that, “even if the employer had mixed motives, the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class was at least one motivating factor in the employer’s adverse action. [read post]
13 Sep 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
If the employer articulates such a reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show at the third step either that “the employer’s stated justification for its adverse action was nothing but a pretext for discrimination,” or that, “even if the employer had mixed motives, the plaintiff’s membership in a protected class was at least one motivating factor in the employer’s adverse action. [read post]
13 Sep 2024, 4:10 am by Howard Friedman
In Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai'i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2024, 1:42 pm by Unknown
Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (Premises Liability; Burden of Proof) State Courts Bulletin https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/2024.html State ex rel. [read post]
11 Sep 2024, 1:13 pm by Giles Peaker
While on rent repayment orders, the change to make superior landlords liable for rent repayment orders, thereby overturning Rakusen v Jepsen, is carried over. [read post]