Search for: "Head v State"
Results 7161 - 7180
of 14,744
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Dec 2010, 12:58 pm
(photo credit) In the trial of Prosecutor v. [read post]
30 Jul 2013, 2:01 pm
Lexis 1688, at *25-26 n.8 (citing Wyeth v. [read post]
2 Feb 2014, 10:37 am
Beckon * Employee Blogging Risks * Employee Terminated for Facebook Message Fails to State Public Policy Claim — Barnett v. [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 9:39 am
In other words, it was drafted and enacted precisely to deal with the situation that has arisen in United States v. [read post]
20 Nov 2015, 11:24 am
United States. [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 6:37 pm
The five dissenting judges argued that this “evidentiary privilege” — traced to the Supreme Court’s 1953 decision in United States v. [read post]
7 Aug 2013, 9:00 am
Akif Khan, a minor v. [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 4:02 pm
Secretary of State, implicates Bloomfield Charter Twp. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 8:00 am
Drebek-Doyle’s head. [read post]
4 Feb 2019, 8:12 am
Grp., LLC v. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" 4 NYCRR, in general, applies to employees of the State in the Classified Service[2]and the employees of public authorities, public benefit corporations and other entities for which the New York State Department Civil Service administers the Civil Service Law. [read post]
25 Oct 2011, 2:08 pm
In balancing these two rights, Tugendhat J had in mind the “ultimate balancing test” as referred to by Lord Steyn Re S (A Child) [2005] 1 AC 593 (at para 17) and guidance from Lord Bingham in R v Shayler [2003] 1 AC 247 (at para 26) that interference of the ECHR right must not be stricter than necessary to achieve the state’s legitimate aim. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 3:51 am
(IP finance) The UK IP Office issues a Virgin trademark ruling that contrasts the Israel approach (IP Factor) EWHC (Pat): Article 27 (to prevent parallel proceedings in different member states) requires flexible approach to meaning of ‘same parties’: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (MAB), Mölnlycke Health care Limited (MUK) v. [read post]
16 Jan 2017, 5:44 pm
”) Post Grant Admin: Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 11:43 am
Under article 219, convicted detainees require an authorization of the director of the prison to write to anyone other than their family, lawyers, Luxembourg officials (judges, prosecutors, public servants, congressmen and the head of state) and consulate officers. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 11:43 am
Under article 219, convicted detainees require an authorization of the director of the prison to write to anyone other than their family, lawyers, Luxembourg officials (judges, prosecutors, public servants, congressmen and the head of state) and consulate officers. [read post]
28 Jul 2020, 2:00 pm
In United States v. [read post]
