Search for: "ROGERS v. IVES" Results 41 - 60 of 211
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Oct 2019, 9:19 am
 I should not be too critical of the Deputy High Court Judge’s (Mr Roger Wyand QC) apparently abrupt conclusion. [read post]
6 Sep 2019, 5:08 am by Marty Lederman
”    As I’ll explain in Parts IV and V of this post, I think such a categorical “heterosexuals only need apply” policy would violate Title VII, even if it equally affected gay men and lesbians alike. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 11:20 am by Bill Marler
        the point in the manufacturing process of the food where contamination is most likely to occur; iv. [read post]
12 Jun 2019, 8:21 am by Bill Marler
        the point in the manufacturing process of the food where contamination is most likely to occur; iv. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 6:01 am by Michael Geist
    ensure that affordable access to high quality telecommunications services is available,iv. [read post]
Serena Mosely-Day, Acting Senior Advisor for Compliance and Enforcement at OCR, discussed enforcement trends and noted that the same issues tend to appear repeatedly including: (i) incomplete or improper risk analysis; (ii) failure to manage identified risk (e.g., encryption at rest for devices and media); (iii) not having compliant Business Associate Agreements (BAAs) in place; (iv) lack of transmission security; (v) lack of appropriate auditing; (vi) not patching software; (vii)… [read post]
28 Sep 2018, 8:25 am by Sander van Rijnswou
Rogers (legal member) dismissed the appeal of the patent proprietor (appellant) against a decision of an opposition division of the European Patent Office revoking patent No. 1 147 174.III. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 9:30 pm by Mitra Sharafi
, Irene BloemraadPart V Membership in the State and Beyond 25. [read post]
21 Jul 2018, 8:07 am by Orin Kerr
The first case is United States v. [read post]
19 Jul 2018, 1:56 am by Badrinath Srinivasan
In Roger Shashoua v Mukesh Sharma (2017 (14) SCC 722), where the parties designated Singapore as the venue and did not specify the seat, the Supreme Court concluded that Singapore was the seat of arbitration, despite the contract being a pre-2012 contract (i.e., prior to Balco). [read post]