Search for: "Smith v. State Bar (1985)" Results 41 - 60 of 156
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2019, 6:50 am by Barry Sookman
Jack, 2018 BCSC 610 where Justice Smith held that Google was not able to show that the global delisting order made against it violated its First Amendment rights in the U.S. or the core values of the U.S. or that the California order undermined the effectiveness of the Equustek order. [read post]
21 Feb 2019, 4:00 am by Administrator
”[72] Justice L’Heureux-Dubé, however, did not agree that an expression stated in the positive (i.e., a “significant contributing cause”) meant the same thing as one stated in the negative (i.e., “not a trivial cause”). [read post]
16 Nov 2018, 8:00 am by Adam Faderewski
He served on the Texas Bar Association Board of Directors from 1927 to 1939, including time as the chairman; was appointed vice chairman of the Supreme Court of Texas Advisory Committee on the State Bar Act and interim director of the State Bar in 1940; and served as State Bar president from 1941 to 1943. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
[Smith v Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612]Demoting an employee for sleeping on duty on two occasions, although a hearing officer found the employee’s supervisor had “condoned” such conduct and the hearing officer had recommended a suspension without pay for three weeks. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 9:15 am by Dennis Crouch
The On Sale Bar has its origin in Justice Story’s decision in Pennock v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
[Smith v Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612]Demoting an employee for sleeping on duty on two occasions, although a hearing officer found the employee’s supervisor had “condoned” such conduct and the hearing officer had recommended a suspension without pay for three weeks. [read post]
5 Sep 2016, 4:28 am by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
Article Four further stated as follows:As an extremely loving and devoted parent, I found that the love, care and concern which I lavished on my daughter was not acknowledged or returned in any way by my daughter. [read post]
9 Jun 2016, 5:51 am by Eugene Volokh
Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985), there is no First Amendment right to use content generated and paid for entirely by another for a purpose contrary to the intent of the content’s creation, and barred by state law. [read post]
6 May 2016, 12:30 pm
This post is from the non-Reed Smith side of the blog. [read post]