Search for: "BAKER v. BAKER" Results 3241 - 3260 of 4,088
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jun 2015, 4:17 am
[Article 2.2 of the Services Directive expressly excludes a number of services from its scope, including "(d) services in the field of transport, including port services, falling within the scope of Title V of the Treaty". [read post]
5 Mar 2014, 10:36 am by Lindsay Griffiths
  In recent years that would be a case widely known in the UK as “Abela – v- Hammonds Suddards et al” where I was the coordinator and head of the legal strategy on behalf of my client, A. [read post]
7 Jun 2022, 4:30 am by Karen Tani
Howell Williams, Western Connecticut State University, “Workers Built Danbury: Deindustrialized Memory in a Hatting Town”Josh Kluever, Binghamton University (SUNY), “Sorry Waldman, We Just Couldn’t Help It: Socialist State Legislators in New York, 1912-1922”CARCERAL STATE, CARCERAL SOCIETYModerator: Elizabeth Hinton, Yale University Panelists: Max Felker-Kantor, Ball State University, “Arresting the Demand for Drugs: DARE and the Politics of Supply and Demand… [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 9:58 am
When Stiglitz suggests that all is not well with the current patent system, his is a voice to which attention should be paid.An accessible presentation of his views can be found in the recent report, “Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Development", co-authored with economist Dean Baker and Professor Arjun Jayadev, published under the auspices of AccessIBSA: Innovation & Access to Medicines in India, Brazil & South Africa, a project supported by the Shuttleworth… [read post]
25 Mar 2019, 7:07 am
Menell and David Nimmer in a separate submission also highlight inconsistency with SCOTUS’s seminal decision in Baker v. [read post]
24 Feb 2019, 4:23 pm by INFORRM
Lachaux v Independent Print, heard 13 and 14 November 2018 (UKSC) ZXC v Bloomberg, heard 27-28 and 30 November 2018 (Nicklin J) R (on the application of Privacy International) v Investigatory Powers Tribunal, heard 3 and 4 December 2018 (UKSC) Ali v Channel 5, heard 4 December 2018 (Irwin, Newey and Baker LJJ). [read post]
1 Dec 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
"Citing Baker v Poughkeepsie City School District, 18 NY3d 714, the court said that “[a]lthough a particular individual's involvement or participation in the disciplinary process does not automatically compel his or her recusal, the case law makes clear that "individuals who are personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process should disqualify themselves from reviewing the recommendations of a Hearing Officer and from acting on the charges. [read post]