Search for: "Matter of Doe v Kelly"
Results 541 - 560
of 651
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Oct 2020, 4:00 am
R. v. [read post]
30 Dec 2022, 4:35 pm
● Laughing Matters? [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 8:03 am
From Henderson v. [read post]
3 Apr 2023, 5:45 am
” Kelly v. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
A simple example: an individual appointed as a provisional or temporary employee in a position in the competitive class does not have the same employee statutory rights as those enjoyed by an individual holding a permanent appointment in the same competitive class title.[12] An individual’s statutory right to many benefits of employment such as eligibility to compete in a promotion examination for a higher grade position, his or her seniority in a layoff situation, and the right to… [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm
A simple example: an individual appointed as a provisional or temporary employee in a position in the competitive class does not have the same employee statutory rights as those enjoyed by an individual holding a permanent appointment in the same competitive class title.[12] An individual’s statutory right to many benefits of employment such as eligibility to compete in a promotion examination for a higher grade position, his or her seniority in a layoff situation, and the right to… [read post]
15 May 2009, 7:49 am
But in Duamutef v. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 8:47 am
Framing matters. [read post]
16 Jan 2021, 10:57 pm
”[32] The parties’ intentions are considered a matter of law, and intent is referred to the trier of fact only if a court determines that the document is ambiguous as a matter of law.[33] Under the objective standard, statements of the parties’ intentions carry the greatest weight.[34] In Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass’n of America v. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 7:02 pm
Butler v. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 8:56 am
U.S. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2022, 9:11 am
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Patton v. [read post]
20 Aug 2020, 12:31 pm
” The new bill does not modify either of these sections. [read post]
22 Jan 2011, 6:05 pm
Servs. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2023, 3:45 am
John v. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 11:55 am
” Oreskes was thus excluded from the litigation in July 2021.[21] The plaintiff and Naomi Oreskes were not content to leave matters as they were decided in Judge Irving’s order. [read post]
9 Jan 2010, 4:12 am
Chelak also ruled, in dicta, that evidence of insurance could potentially come into evidence during the later trial of that matter for limited purposes.In Serulneck v. [read post]
4 Jan 2014, 9:47 am
Gelman does not report what diseases were involved in the 17 claims, arising out of the Paterson factory that used mostly amosite asbestos from South Africa. [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Carey v. [read post]
27 Feb 2009, 7:00 am
: Kelly and another v GE Healthcare Ltd (IP finance) (Mis)appropriation of Wii and PlayStation brands to name medical disorders (IPKat) Is regulation of trade mark attorneys necessary? [read post]
