Search for: "State v. Morrison" Results 461 - 480 of 1,787
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Dec 2017, 4:16 pm by INFORRM
Events 16 January 2018, “Various Claimants v W M Morrison Ltd: Opening the data breach floodgates? [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 9:01 pm by Vikram David Amar
Courts have often expressed—as the Supreme Court did in United States v. [read post]
14 Dec 2017, 1:00 pm by Stewart Baker
 As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent in Morrison v. [read post]
10 Dec 2017, 4:18 pm by INFORRM
Events 16 January 2018, “Various Claimants v W M Morrison Ltd: Opening the data breach floodgates? [read post]
6 Dec 2017, 1:13 pm by Joseph Jones
Skelton to have been acting “in the course of employment”, adopting a broad interpretation of the scope of employment (consistent with past case law: Bazely v Curry [1999 174 D.L.R. 4th 45], Lister [2001 UKHL 22] and Mohamud [2016 UKSC 11]). [read post]
4 Dec 2017, 12:54 pm by Scott Bomboy
“Governmental investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function,” Scalia wrote in his dissent in a 1987 Supreme Court decision, Morrison v. [read post]
3 Dec 2017, 4:04 pm by INFORRM
  First, the claimants in group litigation claim of against Morrisons Supermarket successfully established that the defendant was vicariously liable for a data leak (Various Claimants v W M Morrisons Supermarket plc [2017] EWHC 3113 (QB)). [read post]
21 Nov 2017, 2:02 am by Dave
  To add to this, there is also the evidence compiled by the excellent work of Tony Manzi and Nicky Morrison (paywall, I think, sorry, but the abstract is accessible and provides detail of the study), which demonstrates just how much the risk, business and entrepreneurialisation agendas have infiltrated into housing association practices; we also are becoming more aware of housing association responses to welfare reform (ie exclusions); and, finally, the kinds of mega-mergers that… [read post]
10 Oct 2017, 5:12 am by John Bellinger, Andy Wang
 Earlier this year, we discussed a split in the lower courts regarding whether to apply the “congressional focus” test set forth in Morrison v. [read post]