Search for: "Doe v. Doe Governmental Entity"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,585
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Dec 2019, 9:06 am
The appellate court rejected this argument because the commercial speech exception does not require a completed transaction and it can apply even if the movant is an employee instead of the entity formally selling the goods or services. [read post]
12 Dec 2019, 7:24 am
The ITCA governs tort claims against governmental entities or public employees. [read post]
10 Dec 2019, 4:50 pm
Recently, in U.S. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 10:16 pm
Co., LLC v. [read post]
3 Dec 2019, 9:05 pm
For example, in Engquist v. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 9:01 pm
” United States v. [read post]
25 Nov 2019, 2:14 am
BRI does not yet embrace such formal arrangements between foreign states without China at the center. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 3:52 am
Because the majority considered that it needed to draw a clear distinction between military activity in an area, and governmental control of an area (only the latter being sufficient to bring a person acting on behalf of a non-State entity within the terms of s 134), it was necessary for the order of the Court of Appeal to be amended, and so the appeal was allowed to that very limited extent. [read post]
15 Nov 2019, 3:42 am
An earlier domestic judgment, R v Zardad, also supported the position that a person acting on behalf of a non-State entity may be acting in an official capacity for the purposes of s 134 if the non-State entity “had a sufficient degree of organisation, a sufficient degree of actual control of an area and […] exercised the type of functions which a government or governmental organisation would exercise” [63]. [read post]
8 Nov 2019, 3:00 am
Researchers said this suggests overconfidence can help lobbyists make connections with important people but does not necessarily lead to them being able to influence policies. [read post]
6 Nov 2019, 2:10 pm
Minimum Wage Act, which is more employee-friendly than the FLSA in a number of crucial ways, applies to employers with X o more employees.FOUR: Title VII applies only to governmental entities with 15 or more employees, as does the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"). [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 12:47 pm
But California's position was greatly strengthened by the Supreme Court's May 2018 ruling in Murphy v. [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 4:00 am
SUNY/CSC [Respondents] appealed the Supreme Court's rulings.Addressing the standing of SED to initiate the action in Proceeding 1, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Graziano v County of Albany, 3 NY3d 475, observed that governmental entities have the capacity to sue only when it is based upon a "concrete statutory predicate ... expressly granted in enabling legislation or it may be inferred from review of the entity's statutory functions or… [read post]
24 Oct 2019, 4:00 am
SUNY/CSC [Respondents] appealed the Supreme Court's rulings.Addressing the standing of SED to initiate the action in Proceeding 1, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Graziano v County of Albany, 3 NY3d 475, observed that governmental entities have the capacity to sue only when it is based upon a "concrete statutory predicate ... expressly granted in enabling legislation or it may be inferred from review of the entity's statutory functions or… [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 11:06 am
Although this process took years to complete, it does not address the encryption problem or many other aspects of going dark. [read post]
22 Oct 2019, 9:00 am
This section does not limit employment by a professional corporation designated in this section to only those licensed professionals listed under each subdivision. [read post]
18 Oct 2019, 9:00 am
United States v. [read post]
11 Oct 2019, 3:00 am
The 2010 SpeechNow v. [read post]
8 Oct 2019, 3:59 am
So, it happens sometimes that a private entity does a search. [read post]
7 Oct 2019, 3:00 am
App. 2016) (observing that “governmental entities have the same rights as private property owners to control their properties, so long as the entity’s policies are not employed as a subterfuge for illegal discrimination”). [read post]
