Search for: "Hodges v. Industrial Commission" Results 1 - 20 of 23
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Oct 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
In the recent UK Supreme Court decision O (a minor), R (on the application of v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] UKSC 3, Lord Hodge provided a pithy statement of the approach of the courts in that jurisdiction. [read post]
29 Dec 2022, 9:05 pm by Victoria Hawekotte
Hodges, which protects the right to same-sex marriage. [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 3:58 am by CMS
Background The rule against reflective loss The rule that “reflective loss” cannot be recovered has its origins in Prudential Insurance Co Limited v Newman Industries Limited (No 2) [1982] Ch 204. [read post]
11 Aug 2020, 9:55 pm by Kevin Kaufman
My colleague Scott Hodge recently pointed to Tax Foundation research from 1950 that shows how harmful those policies are.[20] The real challenge of any excess profits tax, and one that Christians recently noted in a presentation, is defining what is excessive.[21] As U.S. [read post]
24 May 2020, 4:06 pm by INFORRM
On the same day Jay J heard a PTR in the slander case of Hodges v Naish (transferred from the Bristol District Registry). [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 1:48 am by Sophie Corke
Even strident critics of IPRs such as Bessen & Meurer accept the benefits they bring in the pharmaceutical industry. [read post]
29 Jun 2018, 5:25 am by Bobby Chen
Hodges, Lawrence v. [read post]
11 Dec 2014, 3:18 am by Samuel Sherwood, Olswang LLP
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was as follows: Non-disclosure of the commissions Lord Sumption held that the decision in Harrison v Black Horse Ltd, the leading Court of Appeal authority, was wrong. [read post]
16 Jun 2013, 7:06 am by Barry Sookman
CJEU reasoning in Usedsoft v Oracle http://bit.ly/13zsrq5 Monsanto Wins Again in Federal Circuit: Organic Farmers Have No Standing to Challenge Patent http://bit.ly/13zsfqL A majority of Americans find government&rsqu [read post]
5 Jan 2012, 9:14 am by Steven G. Pearl
” Plaintiffs moved for summary adjudication of defendants’ affirmative defense that plaintiffs were exempt from the overtime compensation requirements under Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 4. [read post]