Search for: "May v. May" Results 4961 - 4980 of 182,496
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 May 2012, 2:47 am by sally
Burnip v Birmingham City Council and another (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening); Trengove v Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council and another (Same intervening); Gorry v Wiltshire County Council and another (Same intervening) [2012] EWCA Civ 629; [2012] WLR (D) 150 “The statutory criteria for calculating housing benefit for tenants in the private rented sector based on an entitlement to a one bedroom rate discriminated against the severely disabled and… [read post]
14 Jul 2011, 5:44 pm by Lawrence Solum
Nicole Stelle Garnett (Notre Dame Law School) has posted A Winn for Educational Pluralism (Yale Law Journal Online, May 2011) on SSRN. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 1:50 pm by Lyle Denniston
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is expected to be reviewing the ban in Florida, although test cases in state court may be decided before that occurs. [read post]
6 Jun 2011, 6:09 pm by Stephen Gillers
On the ethics front is the possibility that the alleged victim may be paid to go away. [read post]
8 Dec 2022, 10:30 am by Derek Muller
” From it: [A] majority may be willing to sign onto some version of… Continue reading The post Kate Shaw on oral argument in Moore v. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 4:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Apr. 1, 2015) (addressing timeliness of removal under CAFA and types of post-filing events "from which it may first be ascertained that the case is ... removable") Reyes v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 2:32 pm by Olivia Cross
The Supreme Court stated this conclusion nearly one hundred years ago in Local Loan Co. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2020, 2:32 pm by Olivia Cross
The Supreme Court stated this conclusion nearly one hundred years ago in Local Loan Co. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2022, 12:35 pm
Although arbitrators in Canada have considered whether an employer in a unionized workplace can place an employee on unpaid leave for failing to comply with its mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, the British Columbia Supreme Court in Parmar v. [read post]