Search for: "English v. English"
Results 2321 - 2340
of 11,207
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
In Advance of April 1 Effective Date, DOL Issues Guidance on Families First Coronavirus Response Act
26 Mar 2020, 10:49 am
An employer must only provide the notice in English, although the DOL will issue translations in other languages (which, at this point, are to be determined). [read post]
26 Mar 2020, 1:42 am
There is no legal doctrine of force majeure under English law. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 6:03 pm
See, e.g., American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1187 (1st ed. 1969) ("1. a. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 5:52 pm
“If the defendant would have responded the same way to the plaintiff even if he had been white, an ordinary speaker of English would say that the plaintiff received the ‘same’ legally protected right as a white person. [read post]
25 Mar 2020, 11:02 am
Price gouging and war profiteering are as American as, um, apple pie (English origin, actually, or so they say), not that they (price gouging etc.) don’t exist worldwide as well – and neither requires a war. [read post]
24 Mar 2020, 1:15 pm
The test enunciated by the English court in Kuwait Airways Corporation v Kuwait Insurance Co [1996] 1 Lloyds Rep 664, confirmed in Mann and Another v Lexington Insurance Company [2000] is no different in South African law. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 9:54 pm
" Leland v. [read post]
21 Mar 2020, 3:36 pm
This is not a K-Mart "blue light special"State v. [read post]
18 Mar 2020, 8:08 am
Faust v. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 12:13 pm
Subsequently, in its 2016 decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 4:00 am
To now import the English act of state doctrine and jurisprudence into Canadian law would be to overlook the development that its underlying principles have received through considered analysis by Canadian courts. [read post]
14 Mar 2020, 2:47 pm
Goldberg, After Frustration: Three Cheers for Chandler v. [read post]
14 Mar 2020, 3:47 am
Readers might for instance recall the recent judgment in Sekmadienis Ltd v Lithuania [Katpost here], in which the ECtHR considered that a prohibition to use in advertising the image of Jesus and Mary on grounds of public morals should be regarded as an undue compression of the applicants' own freedom of expression under Article 10 ECHR. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 5:21 pm
GermanyBILD v. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 8:07 am
As they pointed out, just a few years earlier, in Kazemi Estate v. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 3:57 am
Shadi.com v. [read post]
9 Mar 2020, 2:30 pm
Ltd. v. [read post]
