Search for: "Taylor v. Taylor"
Results 2381 - 2400
of 4,755
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Oct 2019, 12:54 pm
Simon Taylor (University of Paris Nanterre) ensued directing the discussion to the private enforcement of the GDPR, giving note of some recent case law in the UK on non-pecuniary losses (one of which from the day previous to the Conference, Lloyd v. [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 6:00 am
Julian additionally analyzed the ATS in the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohamed v. [read post]
31 Jan 2007, 2:51 pm
There was a lot of discussion around the applicability of Laird v. [read post]
22 Nov 2017, 2:51 am
Those rules were set aside by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in May, 2017, in the published opinion Taylor v. [read post]
27 Jun 2008, 5:46 pm
Rogers Media Inc.For more discussion of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in the John Ross Taylor case referenced in the CHRC ruling, see our December 17, 2007 post, Mark Steyn, Macleans and Canadian Human Rights. [read post]
9 Apr 2009, 2:00 am
Under the Ninth Circuit's holding in Weil v. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 5:00 am
Paparella v. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 4:30 am
Let's hope so.One of our readers writes in to remind us of the late Elizabeth Taylor's connection to legal history on film. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 5:38 am
Prince raised a fair use defense, relying heavily on his successful 2nd Circuit Cariou v Prince opinion, but the judge here held that the issue of fair use was not one that could be decided as a matter of law. [read post]
15 Jun 2021, 7:20 am
” Marinaccio v. [read post]
13 May 2011, 6:53 am
In last month’s case (Taylor v. [read post]
2 Sep 2021, 2:48 pm
"] Today's Virginia Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. [read post]
20 Dec 2013, 6:17 am
” Taylor v. [read post]
21 Mar 2014, 3:38 pm
Bray v. [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 10:31 am
" This is only the second time the Third Circuit has relied upon that language; the first time was in Taylor v. [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 12:27 am
Taylor U.S. [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]
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]
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]
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]
