Search for: "Taylor v. Taylor"
Results 4121 - 4140
of 4,755
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Dec 2008, 12:13 am
But now we have Bedfordshire CC v Taylor & Ors [2008] EWCA 1316 to look foward to. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 8:32 pm
Consider then, the alleged infringing “Bodyfat Analyzer and Scale” products in the recent suit, Tanita Corp. v. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 6:34 pm
Taylor, Brandon L. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 5:12 pm
Consider then, the alleged infringing "Bodyfat Analyzer and Scale" products in the recent suit, Tanita Corp. v. [read post]
15 Dec 2008, 12:05 pm
" Thus, according to the opinion, the district went too far in its efforts to secure a drug-free learning environment.Also, the Appellate Division, First Department, in considering Patchogue-Medford, said that in the absence of a (Taylor Law) contract requirement that teachers submit themselves to such tests, a compulsory test for the presence of illegal drugs is a search within the meaning of the 4th Amendment. [read post]
13 Dec 2008, 12:13 am
Taylor Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids 08a0725n.06 USA v. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 12:15 pm
Legislative approval of grievances settlement that do not change the terms and conditions of controlling Taylor Law contract is not requiredPatrolmen's Benevolent Assn. of City of Long Beach, Inc. v City of Long Beach, 2008 NY Slip Op 09573, Decided on December 2, 2008, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentThis litigation involved efforts by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association [PBA] to enforce three stipulations executed by the parties in settlement of three grievances… [read post]
11 Dec 2008, 11:59 pm
Read the decision here and further comments from OfcomWatch (Russ Taylor) and MediaPal@LSE (Andrew) and Adrian Monck. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 10:12 pm
John Taylor of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Hon. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 4:45 pm
Later chestnuts (like Taylor v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 9:43 pm
In dictum, the Court of Appeal cited a recent SCOTUS case, Taylor v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 12:15 pm
Workers v. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 9:43 am
Flo Healthcare Solutions, LLC v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 12:15 pm
Weingarten, Inc. (420 US 251 [1975]).A similar issue was addressed by the Appellate division in City of Rochester v Public Employment Relations Board, 15 AD3d 922, Leave to appeal denied, 4 N.Y.3d 710. [read post]
7 Dec 2008, 5:48 am
State, 789 So. 2d 1151, 1153-54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (similar); Taylor v. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 10:45 am
That changed in Payne v. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 6:11 am
And before some wag posts a comment about "it's a start," and compares it to Brown v. [read post]
2 Dec 2008, 10:49 am
Fortenberry v. [read post]
1 Dec 2008, 11:23 am
Day v. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 7:48 pm
As set forth below the two dissenting Justices would have corrected the illegality by ordering the sentences to run concurrently:As noted by the majority, the sentence in this case was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, but we have in the past modified a judgment on the ground that the bargained-for sentence was illegal because consecutive sentences were not permissible and have directed that the sentences run concurrently (see People v Taylor, 197 AD2d 858). [read post]
