Search for: "Sturgis v. Michigan, State of"
Results 1 - 14
of 14
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Jan 2023, 9:48 am
Sturgis Public Schools. [read post]
14 Jan 2023, 12:31 pm
ShareOn Wednesday, in Perez v. [read post]
18 Apr 2023, 8:42 am
In Perez v. [read post]
19 Jan 2023, 7:47 am
The US Supreme Court Wednesday heard oral arguments in Perez v. [read post]
22 Mar 2023, 6:59 am
Sturgis Public Schools, issued on March 21. [read post]
10 Nov 2022, 9:14 am
Sturgis Public Schools (Jan. 18): Whether and when federal education law required a Michigan student who did not receive a qualified sign-language interpreter for years to fully pursue his claims against the school district in administrative proceedings even when doing so would be pointless. [read post]
28 Apr 2022, 4:17 pm
Complaints were made to management at the Sturgis site. [read post]
11 Jul 2023, 9:05 pm
Between the ages of 9 and 20, Miguel Luna Perez attended Sturgis Public School District in Michigan. [read post]
3 Oct 2022, 4:56 pm
Benson, a challenge to the constitutionality of term limits for Michigan lawmakers – capped at three two-year terms for members of the state’s house of representatives and two four-year terms for members of the state senate. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 10:04 am
” Petitioner Miguel Luna Perez was a student in the Sturgis, Michigan, public school district. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 10:19 am
Jovine v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 1:35 pm
Cox, No. 07-1103 In an action alleging vindictive prosecution against Michigan's Attorney General, a state Supreme Court Justice, and the state's Secretary of State, as well as others in the AG's office, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims and imposition of sanctions against them are affirmed where: 1) because the issues raised in a state court were substantially the same as those raised in the district court, because those interests… [read post]
13 Dec 2007, 7:43 am
Unfortunately, transportation is poor to the state's larger communities, where there are more health providers. [read post]
4 Oct 2010, 7:42 am
DECISIONS Sackett v. [read post]
