Search for: "Does 1 - 33" Results 5641 - 5660 of 6,150
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Feb 2009, 4:05 am
They can occur only if the Constitution is in some sense at war with itself: One part of the text prohibits something, but other parts of the text permit it, and the Constitution itself does not appear to give either part priority over the other. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 2:04 pm
On the substance of the case: 1) The starting point taken by the Court (after the Advocate General) is a mistake. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 7:36 am
” A “mass layoff” is defined as a layoff of any of the following in a 30-day period: 1) at least 500 employees; 2) at least 50 employees and 33% of the employees at a single site; 3) at least 50 employees in the case of a shutdown of a single site or operating units within a single site; and 4) separate but related layoffs that occur within a 90-day period which, in the aggregate, exceed one of the foregoing criteria. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 7:36 am
” A “mass layoff” is defined as a layoff of any of the following in a 30-day period: 1) at least 500 employees; 2) at least 50 employees and 33% of the employees at a single site; 3) at least 50 employees in the case of a shutdown of a single site or operating units within a single site; and 4) separate but related layoffs that occur within a 90-day period which, in the aggregate, exceed one of the foregoing criteria. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 7:36 am
” A “mass layoff” is defined as a layoff of any of the following in a 30-day period: 1) at least 500 employees; 2) at least 50 employees and 33% of the employees at a single site; 3) at least 50 employees in the case of a shutdown of a single site or operating units within a single site; and 4) separate but related layoffs that occur within a 90-day period which, in the aggregate, exceed one of the foregoing criteria. [read post]
12 Feb 2009, 5:39 am
Here are the fees permitted in New York: Flat Fee (most typical): 33 1/3% (one-third) of the sum recovered Sliding Scale: 50 % of the first $1,000 recovered, 40% on the next $2,000, 35% on the next $22,000 and 25% on any amount over $25,000 In either event, the percentage fee is calculated on the net sum recovered, meaning that the expenses and disbursements that the lawyer advanced for the case are deducted "off the top" and repaid back to the… [read post]
11 Feb 2009, 5:34 am
Thirdly, as the Court admitted (para 33), the Italian court in considering whether to give effect to an arbitration agreement between the parties is not applying a rule in the Brussels I Regulation but, instead, is applying the rules contained in the New York Convention, as a convention which (to the extent that its effect is not excluded from scope by Art 1(2)(d)) takes priority over the Regulation's rules by virtue of Art 71(1) of the Regulation. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 4:19 am
It should be borne in mind in that regard that Regulation No 44/2001, apart from a few limited exceptions which are not relevant to the main proceedings, does not authorise the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to be reviewed by a court in another Member State (Case C? [read post]
2 Feb 2009, 1:06 pm
Back in 2006, PBC was virtually moribund, with the 33 PCTs that provided details to Pulse having approved or launched just 34 new services through the scheme. [read post]
30 Jan 2009, 6:30 am
Stevens, No. 5:05-CV-33-BO(1) Decision and Order (Mar. 17, 2008) aff'd Order (May 22, 2008),2008 U.S. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 8:15 am
Applying the ready-reckoner, that would give a basic success fee of at most 5% rather than the 33% calculated by Taylor Vinters. [read post]
28 Jan 2009, 10:40 pm
 The fact that the numbers are low does not change the analysis [read post]