Search for: "Smith v. Martin" Results 401 - 420 of 580
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jun 2024, 3:12 am by Dylan Gibbs
" - Brian Lilley | Edmonton… x.com/i/web/status/1… — Danielle Smith (@ABDanielleSmith) Jun 24, 2024 That’s all for today. [read post]
22 Mar 2019, 1:05 am by Tessa Shepperson
However, the High Court (through the same Judge, Mr Justice Martin Spencer) has now ruled that an NLDP breaches the Equality Act on the basis that it amounts to “direct discrimination on the basis of nationality . . . and race”. [read post]
29 Jan 2016, 1:49 pm by John Elwood
Florida, 15-6075, and Smith v. [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 9:33 am by Myron Orfield
Duke Power Company, per that racial radical Warren Burger, found a disparate-impact cause of action under Title VII and, more recently in Smith v. [read post]
5 Mar 2017, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
’  We had posts about this by Steve Barnett and Martin Moore. [read post]
30 Jul 2012, 2:00 am by INFORRM
Publication: LSE MediaPolicy Brief 7, Regulating Media Plurality and Media Power in the 21st Century, [PDF], Rachael Craufurd Smith, Damian Tambini and Davide Morisi. [read post]
15 Dec 2019, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
On 11 December 2019 Julian Knowles J handed down judgment in the case Kirkegaard v Smith  [2019] EWHC 3393 (QB). [read post]
30 Dec 2012, 9:13 pm by John Steele
Although it’s not an IAC case, the SCOTUS also issued Smith v. [read post]
20 Dec 2014, 5:33 am by Tessa Shepperson
My HMO series with David looks at the Management Regulations, and the case of Spencer v. [read post]
23 Feb 2014, 4:03 pm by INFORRM
Meanwhile Roy Greenslade suggested that Lord Chris Smith – a member of the IPSO “Foundation Group” – is a “shoo-in” as its chair. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 5:14 am by INFORRM
In Martin v Najem [2022] NSWDC 479, the claimant, an Instagram food blogger, was called a paedophile and racist in a video posted by a fellow social media foodie as part of a wider campaign of abuse. [read post]
22 Jul 2013, 8:05 am by The Charge
  Considered a "landmark case", Epperson v. [read post]