Search for: "United States v. Sutton" Results 161 - 180 of 270
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 Oct 2010, 9:02 am
Emanating from Guantánamo yesterday:News stories reporting rumors that the military commissions case of United States of America v. [read post]
16 Mar 2017, 9:30 pm by Dan Ernst
Kornreich, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Ret); Of Counsel, Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer and Nelson, P.A. [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]
13 Apr 2018, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
” At National Review, James Sutton argues that “the outcome could affect millions of small, online retailers and brick-and-mortar companies that ship across state lines, subjecting them to abusive treatment by the states. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 9:32 pm by Benjamin Beaton
United States, 398 U.S. 333, 354 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring in the judgment). [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 8:51 am by Joy Waltemath
In this decision (resolving a dispute stemming from changes in the compensation of satellite field technicians), Judge Sutton filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part (NLRB v. [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]
13 Sep 2010, 5:50 am by Jon Hyman
Specifically, Congress found that the United States Supreme Court had narrowed the protections intended by the ADA, and rejected the holdings of Sutton v. [read post]
15 Apr 2009, 4:44 am
United Illuminating, 1998 WL 910271, at *10 (Conn. [read post]
26 Feb 2017, 4:09 pm by INFORRM
United States The newest version of Melania Trump’s defamation claim she has filed against the Daily Mail leaves out a controversial portion of the original — a section that argued the first lady’s earning potential as a brand spokeswoman would be irretrievably damaged by the defamation. [read post]