Search for: "-NMK Call v. Commissioner of Social Security" Results 181 - 200 of 507
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Jul 2020, 7:28 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Serge Joyal cited the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Canada (Information Commissioner) v. [read post]
23 Jul 2020, 9:05 pm by Max Masuda-Farkas
FDA Commissioner Stephen M. [read post]
21 Jul 2020, 4:00 am by John Gregory
An overlap of e-signatures and Internet voting presented some legal challenges in Australia, leading to a decision I found problematic in a 2014 case comment on Getup Ltd v Elections Commissioner. [read post]
19 Jul 2020, 4:12 pm by INFORRM
It struck down the so-called “EU/US Privacy Shield”. [read post]
18 Jul 2020, 4:35 pm by INFORRM
” The New York Times v CIA No.18-2112-cv, concerning whether national security cases which the president had tweeted about, brings the information at issue for FOIA requests. [read post]
12 Jul 2020, 8:06 pm by Omar Ha-Redeye
Discrimination can of course occur on a wide variety of fronts including, but not limited to, employment, education, housing and insurance…, not to mention on a social level. [read post]
12 Jul 2020, 4:28 pm by INFORRM
Resolved – IPSO mediation 02327-20 Lawson v The Gazette (Paisley), Resolved – IPSO mediation Last Week in the Courts On 6 July 2020 Saini J handed down judgment in the case of Spicer v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2020] EWHC 1778 (QB). [read post]
4 Jul 2020, 6:45 am
" Anti-Trumpists typically lump them all together and insist on saying that Trump called Nazis "very fine people. [read post]
2 Jul 2020, 9:05 pm by Joshua Burd
FDA Commissioner Stephen M. [read post]
21 Jun 2020, 4:10 pm by INFORRM
The Press Gazette had a piece “Nancy Pelosi: Social media bosses have ‘utterly failed’ to combat Covid-19 disinformation” Data Privacy and Data Protection The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has released an investigation report into the use of mobile phone extraction (MPE) by police forces when conducting criminal investigations in England and Wales. [read post]
18 Jun 2020, 6:38 am by Linda McClain
Koppelman accuses me of being too forgiving of the civil rights commissioner in Masterpiece and of the U.S. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
Campaign Funds for Judges Warp Criminal Justice, Study Finds New York Times – Adam Liptak | Published: 6/1/2020 In Gideon v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
24 Apr 2020, 4:57 pm by INFORRM
Decisions this Week IndiaIn Re: Banners Placed on Roadside in the City of Lucknow v. [read post]