Search for: "Page Associates v. District of Columbia"
Results 201 - 220
of 355
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Apr 2013, 1:25 pm
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and remanded the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to EPA. [read post]
13 Feb 2023, 9:59 am
District of Columbia v. [read post]
17 Jan 2012, 7:14 am
California, 11-290) argued that the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 9:47 am
In his view, the transport ban involves the same “core Second Amendment right” at the heart of the court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 6:00 am
You can separately subscribe to the IP Thinktank Global week in Review at the Subscribe page: [duncanbucknell.com] Highlights this week included:Forbes interview with M Meurer (co author of ‘Patent Failure’): (Patent Prospector), (IPBiz), (IPBiz), (IPBiz), (IAM), (Technological Innovation and Intellectual Property), (Patent Prospector),Rambus – Rambus stock soars following jury’s dismissal of antitrust and fraud charges from Hynix, Micron, and Nanya… [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 12:25 pm
If you have an announcement to add to the page, email us. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"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
"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]
18 Nov 2022, 10:53 am
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, “[a]t least 35 states and the District of Columbia … introduced or considered almost 200 consumer privacy bills in 2022. [read post]
14 Feb 2016, 12:23 am
Upholding the Second Amendment's limitation on government's power to restrict the right to own guns, in District of Columbia v. [read post]
30 Oct 2016, 5:05 pm
To register for the afternoon workshop this Eventbrite page. [read post]
25 Aug 2016, 6:00 am
The Earth is Our Mother: Freedom of Religion and the Preservation of Aboriginal Sacred Sites in Canada (2017) 62:3 McGill Law Journal (forthcoming) Natasha Bakht, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, OttawaLynda Collins, Associate Professor in the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, Ottawa Excerpt: Abstract, Part IV, Part VI, and Part VII — excerpts are from an unedited manuscript and may not cited without permission. [read post]
19 Dec 2009, 4:03 pm
In In re Mance, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that flat fees are not earned upon receipt. [read post]
8 Apr 2008, 8:05 am
[[Page 18946]] An F-1 student in post-completion OPT, therefore, does not have to leave the United States within 60 days after graduation, but is authorized to remain in t [read post]
20 Mar 2022, 5:36 pm
Canada The claimant’s defamation claim was struck out in Skyllar v The University of British Columbia 2022 BCSC 439. [read post]
29 Apr 2016, 12:00 pm
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit nullified Amtrak’s shared role in settling disputes over those rules. [read post]
1 May 2010, 7:52 am
Judgment in the case of Mireskandari v Associated Newspapers Ltd, (heard 21 April 2010) will be given [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 3:16 pm
District of Columbia, which involved trespass arrests at a loud party held in a vacant house. [read post]
13 May 2022, 5:01 am
In WhatsApp Inc. v. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"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]
