Search for: "United States v. Sutton" Results 141 - 160 of 284
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Jun 2014, 6:22 am by Jag
  Rule 16.5  concerns defences, and states that a defendant must state which allegations he admits, denies, and is unable to admit or deny and requires the claimant to prove (a non-admission). [read post]
27 May 2014, 3:27 am by Jon Gelman
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ JAY BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has held that a private employee cannot not assert a RFRA action against a private employer, in Sutton v. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
  These awards cannot be enforced against the defendant in the United States. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 11:11 am by Sherwin Root
  HUD was further not entitled to a lesser degree of deference owed to an agency position, “in proportion to its persuasiveness” as set forth in the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in Skidmore v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 10:52 am by Orin Kerr
The en banc court handed down its opinions today, with Judge Sutton writing the majority opinion disagreeing with the panel decision. [read post]
25 Oct 2013, 12:34 pm by anbrandon
But that panel's opinion today in United States v. [read post]
31 Jul 2013, 2:38 pm by Eugene Volokh
Poverty can be grim and corrosive, and social mobility in the United States is not what it used to be. [read post]
9 Jul 2013, 6:24 am by Kathy Kapusta
Moreover, in Sutton v United Airlines, Inc, the Supreme Court stated that “an employer is free to decide that physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not rise to the level of an impairment — such as one’s height, build, or singing voice — are preferable to others, just as it is free to decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 4:56 am by Joy Waltemath
Moreover, in Sutton v United Airlines, Inc, the Supreme Court wrote that “an employer is free to decide that physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not rise to the level of an impairment — such as one’s height, build, or singing voice — are preferable to others, just as it is free to decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job. [read post]
7 Jun 2013, 11:46 am by Steve Delchin
  As Judge Sutton wrote in concurrence in Mitts: “Sometimes there is nothing wrong with letting the United States Supreme Court decide whether a decision is correct and, if not, whether it is worthy of correction. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 10:00 pm by Tom Goldstein
United States (No. 96-8986), in which the Court appointed now-Judge Jeff Sutton.) [read post]
6 Feb 2013, 6:00 am by Kenneth J. Vanko
Second, the case itself (apart from the issues on appeal) demonstrates the increasing specter of criminal liability in cases of trade secrets theft - particularly when the theft is intended to benefit companies outside the United States. [read post]