Search for: "Burke v. Burke" Results 181 - 200 of 1,568
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Apr 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Noting that there are some exceptions to the "violation of public policy" prohibition, the Appellate Division, citing Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264, opined that a job security provision "does not violate public policy and therefore is valid and enforceable, but only if the provision is 'explicit,' the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] extends for a 'reasonable period of time,' and the 'CBA was not negotiated in a period of a… [read post]
16 Apr 2020, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Noting that there are some exceptions to the "violation of public policy" prohibition, the Appellate Division, citing Burke v Bowen, 40 NY2d 264, opined that a job security provision "does not violate public policy and therefore is valid and enforceable, but only if the provision is 'explicit,' the CBA [collective bargaining agreement] extends for a 'reasonable period of time,' and the 'CBA was not negotiated in a period of a… [read post]
Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, businesses around the world had been bracing for the financial and operational impact of the new California Consumers Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which took effect January 1, 2020. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 7:08 am by Thomas Key
First, Shane Burke explores a variety of law-based works, where intellectual property law serves as either a medium of expression or a driving force behind the expression. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 4:54 am by SHG
Despite all of this and despite the presumed lens through which Wypijewski walked into the courtroom in the trial of The People of the State of New York v. [read post]
10 Feb 2020, 8:59 am by Rebecca Tushnet
This falls apart in other situations, such as Fox v. [read post]
22 Dec 2019, 3:00 am by Kay Morgan
On December 10, 2019, the Northern District of Texas issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in, Barnes Burk Storage, LLC v. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 3:14 pm by Giles Peaker
While the Tribunal, in view of Camelot Guardian Management Ltd v Khoo (2018) EWHC 2296 (QB)  (our report), was prepared to hold that Ms O had a licence, not a tenancy, that did not help LIG: In our finding the Agreement has all the elements of a licence to occupy the room at the Building and that Ms Oxley and Mr Burke had, in real and practical terms, the exclusive use of the sleeping accommodation. [read post]