• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
296 results

Dr. A., et al., Petitioners v. Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York, et al.

Docket 21-1143, Supreme Court of the United States (Feb. 16, 2022)
Petitioner Dr. A., et al.
Respondent Kathy Hochul, et al.
Other Former EEOC Employees and Title VII Religious Accommodation Experts
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Edward Hedican, Petitioner v. Walmart Stores East, L.P., et al.

Docket 21-648, Supreme Court of the United States (Nov. 3, 2021)
Petitioner Edward Hedican
Respondent Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Respondent Walmart Stores East, L.P. and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Joanna Maxon, et al v. Fuller Theological Seminary, et al

Docket 20-56156, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Nov. 4, 2020)
Tags3448 Civil Rights, Education
Plaintiff - Appellant, JOANNA MAXON, an individual
Plaintiff - Appellant, NATHAN BRITTSAN, an individual
Defendant - Appellee, FULLER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, a California nonprofit corporation
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Petition DENIED Justice Thomas with whom

Document Dr. A., et al., Petitioners v. Kathy Hochul, Governor of New York, et al., 21-1143, Petition DENIED Justice Thomas with whom (U.S. Jun. 30, 2022)
Conse- quently, those who qualified for the broad medical exemp- tion simply had to employ standard protective measures and could keep their jobs.
Circuit has joined three other Courts of Appeals refusing to apply strict scrutiny.2 This split is widespread, entrenched, and worth addressing.
The New York mandate includes a medical exemption but no religious exemption, even though “allowing a healthcare worker to remain unvaccinated undermines the State’s as- serted public health goals equally whether that worker hap- pens to remain unvaccinated for religious reasons or medi- cal ones.” Dr. A., 595 U. S., at ___ (opinion of GORSUCH, J.)
The Court could give much-needed guidance by simply deciding whether that single secular exemption renders the state law not neutral and generally applicable.
J., dissenting from grant of application for stay) (slip op., at 11) (lamenting use of the so-called “shadow docket to signal —————— F. 3d 1214, 1234–1235 (CA11 2004); Fraternal Order of Police v. Newark, 170 F. 3d 359, 365–366 (CA3 1999); Mitchell Cty.
cite Cite Document
Analyze

Brown v. Equifax Inc.

Docket 5:19-cv-00078, North Carolina Eastern District Court (Mar. 4, 2019)
Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle, presiding
Consumer Credit
DivisionWestern Division
FlagsCLOSED, USMJ Jones
Cause15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act
Case Type480 Consumer Credit
Tags480 Consumer Credit, 480 Consumer Credit
Plaintiff Brown
Defendant Equifax Inc.
Plaintiff Jahmal Tremaine Brown
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Carlson v Triangle Capital Corporation, et al.

Docket 5:18-cv-00332, North Carolina Eastern District Court (July 6, 2018)
District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan, presiding.
Securities, Commodities, Exchange

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

JUSTICE v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC

Docket 1:18-cv-00342, North Carolina Middle District Court (April 27, 2018)
JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR, presiding, MAG/JUDGE JOI ELIZABETH PEAKE
Consumer Credit

cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Hinkle v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Docket 1:18-cv-00007, North Carolina Western District Court (Jan. 8, 2018)
District Judge Martin Reidinger, presiding, Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf
Consumer Credit

cite Cite Docket
Analyze
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>