Search for: "Davis v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & W."
Results 41 - 57
of 57
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
13 Feb 2024, 11:53 am
Cases of potential interest to state practitioners are summarized monthly. [read post]
28 May 2017, 4:03 pm
Freedom of Information The judgement in the case of Department of Health v Information Commissioner & Lewis [2017] EWCA Civ 374) has been published. [read post]
24 Dec 2023, 9:05 pm
Robinson, Center for Health Decision Science; Craig Thornton, Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis; and W. [read post]
26 Nov 2011, 4:46 pm
Preferential treatment in public employment decisions, unrelated to protected speech or association, does not infringe upon freedoms secured by the First Amendment. [read post]
3 May 2010, 9:30 pm
– Donald W. [read post]
27 Mar 2023, 1:25 am
The News Media Association (NMA) and National Union of Journalists issued statements stating that the changes would “weaken the flow of information from police forces to the general public, undermining the public right to know. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 10:36 pm
Most importantly, we know that many outbreaks and illnesses are not reported to health departments (Mead et al, 1999), thus these numbers are an underestimation of the true burden of illness. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 7:01 pm
The Labor Department also says employee misclassification also generates substantial losses to state and federal treasuries, and to the Social Security and Medicare funds, as well as to state unemployment insurance and workers compensation funds. [read post]
29 Dec 2008, 9:53 pm
The billboard read: PUBLIC HEALTH NOTICE: Pasteurization, Safer Milk. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 4:56 am
Reviving her suit for a second time, the appeals court reversed summary judgment and remanded (Davis v. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 8:56 am
” Walling v. [read post]
15 Sep 2020, 7:32 am
Davis, and NLRB v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:14 pm
In the case of Doherty v. [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 2:14 pm
In the case of Doherty v. [read post]
16 Jun 2022, 9:05 pm
The SEC explained: [W]e believe that NEPA requires and authorizes the Commission to consider the promotion of environmental protection along with other considerations in determining whether to require affirmative disclosures by registrants under the Securities Act and the Securities and Exchange Act . . . . [read post]
9 Oct 2006, 5:12 pm
The Board granted the General Counsel's motion for partial summary judgment as to the following paragraphs and Appendixes of the compliance specification: Paragraphs 1-5, 6(b), 7(b), 8(b), 9(b)-(e), 10-11, 15-16, 20-21, 34(a), 36-37, 41-42, 46-47, 50(a)-(b), 52-53, 57-58, 62-63, 67-68, 71(a)-(b), 73-74, 78-79, 88-89; Appendixes A, C, E, K, M, O, Q, S, U, W, Y, AA, and EE. [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 3:25 pm
SG and 35 state AGs have weighed in claiming that data mining does not merit First Amendment protection. [read post]
