Search for: "State v. Code"
Results 3121 - 3140
of 27,227
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2022, 10:30 am
For the purpose of potentially discontinuing isolation after a positive COVID-19 test, both the CDPH and DIR state a preference for antigen tests to determine an individuals’ COVID-19 status.[24] While neither the CDPH nor DIR require that the COVID-19 test be administered by an independent third party for such purpose, employers may consider disallowing self-administered and self-read tests (e.g., at-home tests) and requiring that employees provide documentation of the negative test… [read post]
10 Feb 2022, 5:01 am
Code § 5-1107 and MPD General Order 201.26. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 12:17 pm
Ala.) in today's Doe v. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 11:42 am
The ROSS v. [read post]
9 Feb 2022, 8:43 am
Motorola Sols., Inc. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 2:07 pm
In 2003, California lawmakers enacted Labor Code Section 1102.6, setting forth a framework for whistleblower retaliation claims that varied from the burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 10:29 am
(Citing Concerned Dublin Citizens v. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 10:22 am
Relying on Wollmer v. [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 8:15 am
In this case, you may still show that you did not receive the notice of deficiency delivery (Lepore v Comm’r, TC Memo, 2013-135, at 4-5). [read post]
8 Feb 2022, 6:17 am
See, e.g., Krohe v. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 12:56 pm
Beyer is quoted, and his article Will Contests—Prediction and Prevention is cited in the following case: Matter of Last Will and Testament of Beard v. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 10:32 am
Method Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 8:43 am
Code. [read post]
7 Feb 2022, 2:00 am
In Pittsburgh Logistics Systems, Inc. v. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 9:03 pm
The State of Oklahoma v. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 9:01 pm
Appeal, in coded and in not so coded ways, to racial resentment. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 5:30 pm
” The Directive cites Ranjan v. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 1:30 pm
’’ Despite the choice of law provision, George Frank unilaterally added the following language at the end of paragraph 19: ‘‘Since this is a contract for an agreement taking place in the state of Connecticut, Connecticut laws will supersede those of California. [read post]
6 Feb 2022, 12:44 pm
The Court of Appeal decision in Patel v London Borough of Hackney (2021) EWCA Civ 897 (our note) was also considered. [read post]
5 Feb 2022, 4:37 pm
The Judge stated that in order to succeed with the summary judgment application, the [read post]
