Search for: "Walker v. United States" Results 121 - 140 of 1,198
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
11 Jul 2022, 1:29 am by INFORRM
This followed Newsquest chief executive Henry Faure Walker promise that the company “intend[s] to do our utmost to save these loss-making titles” using economies of scale, the Press Gazette reports. [read post]
20 Jun 2022, 3:23 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Circuit, about which the NYT writes: At least two climate cases are pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. [read post]
10 Jun 2022, 7:12 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
"In dissent, Judge Bianco says the majority's holding "is contrary to the language and purpose of Title VII as construed by this Court and the United States Supreme Court. [read post]
Eight months before the 2016 presidential election, the President of the United States nominated a respected jurist to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. [read post]
27 May 2022, 12:50 pm
In this regard, I think he's right about Rule 8, but wrong about Rule 3 -- and I'm fairly surprised by the failure of the opinion to discuss (or even cite) Walker v. [read post]
19 May 2022, 6:37 pm by Sabrina I. Pacifici
Vox: “The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued yet another astonishing decision on Wednesday. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm by Public Employment Law Press
Favors v Cuomo, 2012 WL 928223 *2, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 36910, *10 [ED NY, Mar. 19, 2012, No. 11-CV-5632, Raggi, Lynch, and Irizarry, JJ.]; Rodriguez v Pataki, 2002 WL 1058054, *7, 2002 US Dist LEXIS, *25-27 [SD NY 2002, May 24, 2002, No. 02 Civ. 618, Walker, Ch. [read post]
27 Apr 2022, 1:12 pm by Public Employment Law Press
Favors v Cuomo, 2012 WL 928223 *2, 2012 US Dist LEXIS 36910, *10 [ED NY, Mar. 19, 2012, No. 11-CV-5632, Raggi, Lynch, and Irizarry, JJ.]; Rodriguez v Pataki, 2002 WL 1058054, *7, 2002 US Dist LEXIS, *25-27 [SD NY 2002, May 24, 2002, No. 02 Civ. 618, Walker, Ch. [read post]
24 Apr 2022, 4:46 pm by Thomas B. Griffith
But because such states are unlikely to pay, Congress passed the Justice for United States Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Act (the “Act”), which established a fund to compensate terrorism victims. [read post]