Search for: "Still v. Justice Court" Results 6081 - 6100 of 19,603
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jul 2023, 8:55 am by Lawrence Solum
Quinney College of Law) has posted Reproductive Justice at Work: Employment Law After Dobbs v. [read post]
22 Feb 2007, 9:47 pm
She contended that the state postconviction review process is still pending while the cert petition is under consideration, just as the Court has held that a state criminal conviction is not final until the Supreme Court denies cert. [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 12:57 pm by Mark Walsh
The chief announces that Justice Elena Kagan has the opinion of the court in Sveen v. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 9:18 am by Eric
By Eric Goldman with additional comments from David Gingras Maximized Living, Inc. v. [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 6:00 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
In Markoulakis v SNC-Lavalin Inc., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice concluded after considering the Bardal factors that long-serving employee Eftihios (Ed) Markoulakis was entitled to 27 months of common law reasonable notice following his termination from a senior role at SNC-Lavalin. [read post]
14 May 2023, 3:24 pm by Guest Author
The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Loper Bright Enterprises v. [read post]
21 Dec 2017, 4:38 am by RUTH SMITH, MILLS & REEVE
Although the parties had already agreed a compromised settlement (see this earlier blog), they asked that the Supreme Court still hear the appeal, as there were important points of principle at stake. [read post]
15 Mar 2010, 5:44 am
Those letters stand for its real name, the Court of Justice -- the top tier of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). [read post]
3 May 2011, 12:15 pm by John Elwood
On Monday, the Court granted cert. in M.B.Z. v. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 1:28 am by Michael Geist
The Supreme Court of Canada today issued its much anticipated ruling in Crookes v. [read post]
19 Oct 2008, 11:32 am
A recent decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. [read post]
15 Dec 2011, 10:00 pm by Dan Ernst
I suggested that this result was one that the Court, or at least some of its members, would have foreseen and welcomed, but that it was not something the Court felt comfortable addressing directly.When my article was published, the papers of Justice Potter Stewart, the author of the Court's opinion in Katz, were still under seal. [read post]