Cases pin-citing United States v. Renard Maurice Nealy · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing United States v. Renard Maurice Nealy

Cases pin-citing United States v. Renard Maurice Nealy

United States v. Renard Maurice Nealy  ·  2000  ·  24 pinpoint citations from 24 cases, 10 distinct passages.

Cusatis v. Atlantic Waste Services, Inc.  ·  2024-03-25  ·  S.D. Georgia  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Title VII and ADEA actions may not be brought more than 90 days after a complainant has adequate notice that the EEOC has dismissed the Charge.”
Rickey Christmas v. Lieutenant J. Nabors  ·  2023-08-08  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Parties must submit all issues on appeal in their initial briefs.”
Bowles v. Rumph & Associates  ·  2023-06-05  ·  N.D. Alabama  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Title VII . . . actions may not be brought more than 90 days after a complainant has adequate notice that the EEOC has dismissed the Charge.”
Linda B. Philpot v. Peach State Health Plan, Inc.  ·  2022-11-29  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Title VII and ADEA actions may not be brought more than 90 days after a complainant has adequate notice that the EEOC has dismissed the Charge.”
Jackson-Pringle v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority  ·  2022-07-28  ·  District of Columbia  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“[T]he issuance of a second Notice [merely to correct a technical defect] . . . is immaterial.”
Moore v. Huntsville Rehabilitation Foundation, Inc.  ·  2022-01-05  ·  N.D. Alabama  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Title VII . . . actions may not be brought more than 90 days after a complainant has adequate notice that the EEOC has dismissed the Charge.”
Singleton v. Garden City, Georgia  ·  2021-02-26  ·  S.D. Georgia  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Title VII . . . actions may not be brought more than 90 days after a complainant has adequate notice that the EEOC has dismissed the Charge.”
GLOVER v. CITY OF ABBEVILLE  ·  2019-12-03  ·  M.D. Georgia  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Title VII . . . action[] may not be brought more than 90 days after a complainant has adequate notice that the EEOC has dismissed the Charge.”
Mary A. McDuffie v. Broward County  ·  2016-05-25  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Title VII ... actions may not be brought more than 90 days after a complainant has adequate notice that the EEOC has dismissed the Charge.”
Adrienne L. Curry v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs  ·  2013-05-21  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Parties must submit all issues on appeal in their initial briefs.”
Ricky D. Adkins v. Warden, Holman CF  ·  2013-02-27  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Parties must submit all issues on appeal in their initial briefs.”
Ricky D. Adkins v. Warden, Holman CF  ·  2013-02-27  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Parties must submit all issues on appeal in their initial briefs.”
Ricky D. Adkins v. Warden, Holman CF  ·  2013-02-27  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Parties must submit all issues on appeal in their initial briefs.”
Jarretta P. Hamilton v. Southland Christian School, Inc.  ·  2012-05-16  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“[P]arties cannot properly raise new issues at supplemental briefing, even if the issues arise based on the intervening decisions or new developments cited in the supplemental authority.”
United States v. Richard O. Singer  ·  2005-10-14  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Defendant abandoned the [Apprendi] indictment issue by not raising the issue in his initial brief.”
United States v. Marco D. Duncan  ·  2005-08-18  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
"Defendant abandoned the [Apprendi] indictment issue by not raising the issue in his initial brief."
United States v. Levy  ·  2004-12-03  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“The Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to the Apprendi rule.”
United States v. Ignasio Maldenaldo Sanchez, United States of America v. Santiago Gilberto Sanchez  ·  2001-10-17  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
"The Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to the Apprendi rule."
Fedaa Al Najjar v. John Ashcroft  ·  2001-07-18  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
"Defendant abandoned the . . . issue by not raising the issue in his initial brief."
United States v. Nghia Le  ·  2001-07-11  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“The Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to the Apprendi rule.”
United States v. Santiago Gilberto Sanchez  ·  2001-02-26  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“The Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to the Apprendi rule.”
United States v. Ignasio Maldenaldo Sanchez  ·  2001-02-26  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“The Sentencing Guidelines are not subject to the Apprendi rule.”
United States v. Ardley  ·  2001-02-20  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Defendant abandoned the [Apprendi] indictment issue by not raising the issue in his initial brief.”
United States v. Ardley  ·  2001-02-20  ·  Eleventh Circuit  ·  pin 232 F.3d at 825
“Defendant abandoned the [Apprendi] indictment issue by not raising the issue in his initial brief.”