Search for: "LAWS v. DAVIS"
Results 2961 - 2980
of 6,273
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jul 2012, 10:19 am
" Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. [read post]
26 May 2015, 7:56 am
In re Davis, 114 N.C. [read post]
20 Dec 2021, 5:30 am
Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia A leading defamation judge in Sydney has joined legal experts in criticising the Morrison government’s proposed anti-troll law. [read post]
23 May 2022, 7:07 pm
The Fifth Circuit’s recent decision invalidating tenure protections for SEC Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) in Jarkesy v. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 10:30 am
Scialabba v. de Osorio, US Supreme Court (6/9/14)Immigration LawQualifying U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) may petition for family members to obtain immigrant visas. [read post]
4 Sep 2022, 3:50 am
,”‘Lockstep’ falls out of step with modern law firms,” FT.com, Dec 16, 2021 (discussing recent changes at Linklaters and Cravath); Debra Cassens Weiss, “BigLaw firm switches from strict lockstep compensation for partners to modified system,” ABA Journal, Sept 11, 2020 (discussing changes to lockstep model at Davis Polk). [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 9:01 pm
The Facts in Vance v. [read post]
27 Jun 2013, 11:27 am
Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998), and Faragher v. [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Inasmuch as the Attorney General's office was not an agency involved in the FOIL request, and is without authority to grant relief requested by petitioner, the Attorney General is not a proper party herein (see Matter of Davis v Evans, 97 AD3d 857, 858 [3d Dept 2012]; Matter of Abreu v Hogan, 72 AD3d 1143, 1144 [3d Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836 [2010]). [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Inasmuch as the Attorney General's office was not an agency involved in the FOIL request, and is without authority to grant relief requested by petitioner, the Attorney General is not a proper party herein (see Matter of Davis v Evans, 97 AD3d 857, 858 [3d Dept 2012]; Matter of Abreu v Hogan, 72 AD3d 1143, 1144 [3d Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836 [2010]). [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 4:37 am
Davis, 482 F.2d 893, 908 (9th Cir. 1973)). [read post]
7 Sep 2011, 7:01 am
Dukes, AT&T v. [read post]
22 Feb 2015, 4:04 pm
UK intelligence agencies, including M15 and MI6, have been keeping track of conversations between lawyers and their clients and failing to comply with human rights laws. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 5:11 am
Federal law does not establish criminal penalties for violations of Davis-Bacon. [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 1:20 pm
Summary of Decision issued February 9, 2010Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Boyer-Gladden v. [read post]
30 Jun 2020, 12:46 pm
Davis L. [read post]
28 May 2011, 10:48 pm
Sinclair v Higgins, Davis v Nationwide News, Attrill v Christie – all NSW Supreme Court. $50,000 – $100,000. [read post]
17 Oct 2012, 8:46 am
By Jay Perry In a case that is emblematic of the potential problems with digital communication during jury trials, the Tennessee Supreme Court has granted review in State v. [read post]
23 Mar 2011, 3:54 pm
UC Davis 23. [read post]
