Search for: "State v. Clayton"
Results 101 - 120
of 1,024
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Jul 2008, 7:52 pm
Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), and Kansas v. [read post]
1 Sep 2021, 7:23 am
In the case, Bostock v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 1:00 am
It appears that in United States v. [read post]
26 Jun 2020, 9:14 am
The 2020 Rule directly contravenes the Supreme Court of the United States’ recent holding in Bostock v. [read post]
28 Dec 2018, 1:00 am
In Granholm v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 11:43 am
While many codes state that the nonconforming use must be “lawfully established,” they do not generally specify whether, to be “lawful,” the use must have complied only with land use regulations or with other laws as well.In McMilian v. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 10:52 am
Clayton County, Georgia, consolidated with Altitude Express Inc. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 8:31 am
Clayton County, Georgia. [read post]
20 Jun 2020, 3:30 pm
The recent United States Supreme Court case, Bostock v. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 3:50 pm
Assuming no petition for certiorari is filed, and given the Third Circuit’s straightforward reasoning, it seems likely that going forward, in order to request attorneys’ fees, state attorneys general must not only join under Section 7 of the Clayton Act but actually litigate under the more demanding Clayton Act standard for granting injunctive relief. [1] FTC et al. v. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 11:28 pm
In his unusually pointed remarks, Chairman Clayton did not mince words, stating: “Market professionals, especially gatekeepers, need to act responsibly and hold themselves to high standards. [read post]
27 Aug 2017, 4:00 pm
In Alberta v. [read post]
9 Oct 2016, 11:08 pm
”[3] It also clearly stated that a positive test for illicit drugs could result in dismissal. [read post]
9 Oct 2019, 4:05 am
Clayton County, Georgia and Altitude Express, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2021, 3:30 am
Yesterday, the Supreme Court declined to address the Fourth Circuit’s decision in G.G. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 7:29 am
The case, Ginsburg v. [read post]
1 May 2024, 3:09 pm
See Pate v. [read post]
12 Sep 2010, 11:05 am
This week at the CCAs: On Wednesday, AFCCA will hear oral argument in United States v. [read post]
26 Dec 2020, 3:00 pm
Clayton County, Georgia held that the provision of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination in employment "because of sex" protects gay, lesbian and transgender individuals.(4) The Supreme Court in Espinoza v. [read post]
5 Aug 2020, 7:59 am
Clayton County, Little Sisters of the Poor v. [read post]
