Search for: "Lacks v. Commissioner of Correction"
Results 281 - 300
of 446
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Aug 2015, 5:46 am
See, Kaplan v. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 4:00 am
Plaintiffs subsequently appealed from the district court's order granting the United States' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 9:01 pm
However, each new allegation carries with it the prospect of unearthing prior claims for which no corrective action was taken. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:24 am
Ct. 2783 (2008) and McDonald v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 9:19 am
The AEP entities sought dismissal based on a lack of personal jurisdiction and the District of Nevada, where the cases had been consolidated, agreed. [read post]
29 Aug 2018, 7:03 am
Supreme Court in South Dakota v. [read post]
24 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm
Georgia and McClesky v. [read post]
23 Jul 2014, 12:45 pm
Customs and Excise Commissioners, [1974] A.C. 133) and Mareva injunctions (derived from the well decision in Mareva Compania Naviera S.A. v. [read post]
6 Dec 2020, 4:45 pm
Data Privacy and Data Protection The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has fined OSL Financial Consultancy Limited (OSL) £50,000 for illegally sending 174,342 nuisance marketing texts. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 3:26 am
Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) and Family Court Act § 413 (1) were amended by Laws of 2011, Ch 436 to correct these anomalies and to codify the decision in Rose v Moody. [read post]
13 Mar 2024, 4:07 pm
Commissioner of Corrections The commissioner of corrections is the person responsible for the administration of Minnesota’s Department of Corrections, in other words, Minnesota’s state prisons. [read post]
Guest Post: Halliburton II Price Impact Defenses Can Limit Severity on Deficient Exchange Act Claims
12 Jan 2021, 2:19 pm
The data indicate that nearly 50%, or $33.7 billion, of non-meritorious alleged market capitalization losses in the last two years, were claimed against U.S. issuers in the third and fourth quarters of 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic.[14] After discounting the non-meritorious portion of alleged market capitalization losses of defendant U.S. issuers, we estimate that corporate exposure to Rule 10(b)-5 private securities fraud litigation amounts to $335 billion in 2019 and $308… [read post]
29 Oct 2017, 3:05 pm
Kwon v. [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]
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]
1 Dec 2011, 3:40 am
" This morning the Court of Justice gave its ruling in Joined Cases C 446/09 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v Lucheng Meijing Industrial Company Ltd, Far East Sourcing Ltd, Röhlig Hong Kong Ltd, Röhlig Belgium NV and Nokia Corporation and and C 495/09 Nokia Corporation v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs, International Trademark Association intervening. [read post]
21 Dec 2013, 4:31 am
” Touby v. [read post]
29 Aug 2012, 6:41 am
This committee is formed pursuant to article 17 of the Convention and it operates under the auspices of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. [read post]
