Search for: "Works v. State" Results 3901 - 3920 of 60,421
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am by Blog Editorial
James Wolffe QC, now appears in support of the Respondents. 15.16 Lavery QC states that the will of Parliament should not overrule the will of the Irish people and that the triggering of article 50 without their consent would do just that. 15.14 Lavery QC says that Northern Ireland has a complex constitutional settlement that is legally binding as a result of  section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. 15.10  Lavery QC says that section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act… [read post]
20 Oct 2021, 4:58 am by Jocelyn Hutton
The Respondent sought a condition prohibiting the Appellant from continuing to perform unpaid work, but the Tribunal decided not to impose such a condition. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 5:24 am by Frank Cranmer
She also worked for herself as a Foot Health Practitioner, often providing services to the respondent [10]. [read post]
28 Aug 2020, 1:45 am by petrocohen
Frank Petro has received the highest rating (A/V) from Martindale-Hubbell, the world’s foremost authority on law firm credentials. [read post]
12 Sep 2023, 2:00 am by Sherica Celine
State Law Comparison Tool for ABCs Mega Chapter 11 Filings Tracker Subchapter V Decision Tracker Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Resource Kit is a frequently updated collection of current Practical Guidance materials on generative AI, ChatGPT, and similar tools. [read post]
14 Feb 2021, 11:29 am by Venkat Balasubramani
Though this is a pro-defense ruling, it works to Rad’s disadvantage, fulfilling another condition for his removal from the United States. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 10:40 am by Max Kennerly, Esq.
Samsung involves “design” and “utility” patents relating to how the iPhone looks to and works for users, while Apple v. [read post]
16 Dec 2009, 7:16 pm by Donald Thompson
On 12/15/09 in People v Wrotten (a name that works), the Court of Appeals, relying on People v Cintron (75 NY2d 249 [1990]) held that permitting an adult complainant living in another state to testify via real-time, two-way video after finding that because of age and poor health he was unable to travel to New York to attend court was within the trial court's inherent powers under Judiciary Law § 2-b, absent any specific statutory authority for such… [read post]