Search for: "MATTER OF C S"
Results 1 - 20
of 34,437
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jun 2024, 7:32 am
For matters in which the chart allows for selection between Levels, identify how the factors in G.S. 7B-2501(c) support the agreed upon Level. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 5:59 am
At present, Austria’s position offers no dogmatic justification for such a distinction. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 5:31 am
Virani’s office now says that “It is critical for the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to maintain the confidence of all Canadians and to be seen as an impartial and fair judge of matters before them. [read post]
25 Jun 2024, 3:00 am
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 10:30 pm
The corrective mechanism allows authorities to deviate from this threshold if there has been a significant change in the applicant’s country of origin since the publication of the relevant Eurostat data. [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 9:01 pm
While the nature of comments varies significantly depending on the specific facts for each company, the top areas of comment in fiscal year 2023 probably come as no surprise to this audience and include, among others, China-related matters, non-GAAP disclosures, management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A), revenue recognition, and financial statement presentation. [read post]
The Indian Satellite Saga and Retaliation: Recognizing the Supreme Court of India’s Judgment Abroad?
24 Jun 2024, 7:03 pm
Devas’s other shareholders did not participate in the SCI proceedings. [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 6:45 am
C. 1.9(a), as amended, 490 Mass. 1305 (2022), existed. [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 5:06 am
Again, Plaintiff's speech contains arguably offensive content, with Plaintiff stating that the "[c]onspiracy theories, and big pharma stuff is bullshit…STFU!! [read post]
24 Jun 2024, 1:56 am
Similarly, the claim did not amount to Jameel abuse as the allegations published in the Home Office Report were very serious and their effect on the claimant’s reputation was held to be a matter for trial. [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 9:05 pm
This post comes to us from Professor Susan C. [read post]
23 Jun 2024, 9:31 am
AK brought the present JR, asserting that: a) the policy discriminates indirectly against women without proper justification contrary to s19 and thus s29 of the Equality Act 2010 b) Westminster was in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty in failing to assess the policy’s impact, and c) the policy amounted to a breach of Article 14 ECHR obligations, read with Article 8. [read post]
22 Jun 2024, 3:26 am
And of course the matter of selection inevitably involves the introduction of bias. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 1:38 pm
C. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 8:21 am
C. [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 6:57 am
See, e.g., ABA Model Rules 1.1, 1.6(c), & 1.15(a). [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Claimant's subsequent request for a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was provisionally approved, pending a legal determination, but was later denied in November 2021 based upon the absence of a religious exemption in the state mandate (see 10 NYCRR former 2.61 [c], [d]; Matter of Parks [Commissioner of Labor], 219 AD3d 1099, 1100-1101 & n 1 [3d Dept 2023]). [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
Claimant's subsequent request for a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate was provisionally approved, pending a legal determination, but was later denied in November 2021 based upon the absence of a religious exemption in the state mandate (see 10 NYCRR former 2.61 [c], [d]; Matter of Parks [Commissioner of Labor], 219 AD3d 1099, 1100-1101 & n 1 [3d Dept 2023]). [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 5:57 am
– Black Iced Coffee – Gryphon Coffee – Nite Owl – Heady Cup – Monkshood – Heart Coffee – Ethiopian – Heine Bros – Black Coffee – Heine Bros – Coconut Latte – Heine Bros – Toasted Coconut – Helm – Black Coffee – Helm – Black Nitro – Helm – Maple Nitro Latte – Honest Coffee – Early Riser – Hustle N’ Grind – Cafecito –… [read post]
21 Jun 2024, 12:35 am
This would mean that the EUIPO’s appeal in APE TEES (EUIPO v Nowhere, C-337/22 P, see also here) would be successful, as in that case, the GC had – surprisingly – considered that what mattered was the date of application of the opposed EUTM. [read post]
