Search for: "Walker v. State Personnel Board" Results 1 - 20 of 24
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2021, 7:02 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Circuit had also previously used this language, and Fischbach cites the general rule that courts cannot serve as super-personnel boards. [read post]
1 May 2018, 4:37 am by Christopher J. Walker
Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the Court in in Oil States Energy Services v. [read post]
13 May 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
A notice published by the board said the meeting, held 12 days after Meng’s resignation, was closed so board members could discuss a “chief executive officer’s briefing on performance, employment, and personnel items. [read post]
5 Sep 2011, 5:16 am by New Books Script
KF 388 W24 2011 Walker & Walker’s English legal system / Richard Ward, Amanda Akhtar. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 9:03 am by Timothy P. Flynn
 Court watchers equate the Perry case to that of Brown v Board of Education (abolishing the "separate but equal" fallacy in public schools) and Loving v Virginia (holding that a state could not prohibit interracial marriages).Whatever the outcome of the trial, an intermediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit is guaranteed to send this one to the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
11 Apr 2010, 8:52 am by Timothy P. Flynn, Esq.
 Also destined for certiorari is Gill v Office of Personnel Management. [read post]
7 Oct 2016, 6:51 am by Jim Sedor
The money followed a legal but circuitous route turbocharged by the 2014 ruling in McCutcheon v. [read post]
11 Feb 2022, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
One Menacing Call After Another: Threats against lawmakers surge Yahoo News – Catie Edmondson and Mark Walker (New York Times) | Published: 2/9/2022 The New York Times reviewed more than 75 indictments of people charged with threatening lawmakers since 2016. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Mitchell, No. 02-3505 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a death penalty case is reversed where: 1) a state court applied the Strickland standard in an objectively unreasonable manner for purposes of claims that petitioner's counsel were ineffective in preparing for the sentencing phase of his trial; 2) the state court unreasonably determined that the alleged errors of trial counsel did not prejudice petitioner's case; and 3) a state court erroneously… [read post]