Search for: "See v. See" Results 421 - 440 of 122,071
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Aug 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
FOIL imposes a broad duty on government to make its records available to the public", citing Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267., said FOIL provides that, "unless otherwise specifically exempted, all records of a public agency are presumptively open to public inspection and copying". [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
FOIL imposes a broad duty on government to make its records available to the public", citing Gould v New York City Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267., said FOIL provides that, "unless otherwise specifically exempted, all records of a public agency are presumptively open to public inspection and copying". [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 4:00 am by Sherica Celine
Subchapter V Decision Tracker – Keep up to date on key legal developments with two new cases in August (so far). [read post]
20 Aug 2024, 3:38 am by Annsley Merelle Ward
Rather, revocation 11 proceedings may be brought before the UPC even if an opposition before the EPO is pending, see Art. 33 (8), (10) UPCA. [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 5:43 pm by John Floyd
”   In May 2022, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) confronted a contentious case, State v. [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 5:01 pm by Aaron Moss
The AI copyright and fair use trial in Thomson Reuters v. [read post]
On July 26, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) issued its Fair Choice – Employee Voice Final Rule (“Final Rule”), which rescinds a trio of April 2020 amendments to the Board’s Rules and Regulations[1] affecting the Board’s processing of petitions that ultimately make it easier for unions to maintain recognition and stifles employee choice in whether to be represented by a union. [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 12:43 pm by John Floyd
” In May 2022, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) confronted a contentious case, State v. [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 10:22 am by Giles Peaker
Clause 1.1 of the tenancy agreement creates a monthly periodic tenancy; a periodic tenancy is one that is comprised of a consecutive series of terms arising one after the other until one of the parties gives notice to bring it to an end (this is long-established, but for a recent statement see Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v London Residuary Body (1992) 2 AC 386 at paragraph 394). [read post]
19 Aug 2024, 9:21 am by Marcel Pemsel
When two heavyweights such as INTA and MARQUES enter the ring and file statements in intervention with the General Court, you can bet that the case is interesting. [read post]