Search for: "MATTER OF BROWN" Results 7541 - 7560 of 9,189
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jun 2010, 7:55 pm
Concerning name-clearing hearingsBrowne v City of New York, 2010 NY Slip Op 04583, Decided on May 25, 2010, Appellate Division, Second Department [Browne II]In general, a name-clearing hearing is to provide an employee who claims that he or she has been “stigmatized” by his or her employer with an opportunity to clear his or her name* The individual seeking such a hearing has the burden of proof in the proceeding.Typically the individual seeks a name-clearing hearing if he or… [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 12:36 pm by Greg Barnhart
Nevertheless, whether Congress is able to raise the level of liability may not matter, as certain provisions are likely to allow claimants to "break the cap. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 12:36 pm by Greg Barnhart
Nevertheless, whether Congress is able to raise the level of liability may not matter, as certain provisions are likely to allow claimants to "break the cap. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 5:00 am by Doug Cornelius
(See my prior post: Compliance Van Halen and Brown M&M’s.) [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 4:59 pm by Erin Miller
But the matter received almost no attention when it happened in late 1979. [read post]
1 Jun 2010, 10:00 pm by Jim Hassett
  When I swapped some emails about this problem with Toby Brown of Fulbright & Jaworski (and of Three Geeks and a Law Blog), he noted that, It's classic for a firm to ‘build then do’ with software and other systems. [read post]
31 May 2010, 10:10 pm by INFORRM
While those matters might appear entirely anodyne and not worthy of protection to judges in the UK, they are protected in France. [read post]
29 May 2010, 4:18 am by INFORRM
The ruling resulted from the posting in 2006 of a video on the now defunct Google Video showing the boy being bullied, and the verdict was handed down despite the material being removed a matter of hours after Google was notified. [read post]
29 May 2010, 2:53 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
It simply does not matter if the patent infringer was "aware" of the patent (or of Mullin's blog). [read post]
28 May 2010, 4:52 pm by Venkat
As the court notes (quoting from an article), "[i]t should now be a matter of professional competence for attorneys to take the time to investigate social networking sites. [read post]
28 May 2010, 2:28 pm by Erin Miller
John Paul Stevens: An Independent Life explores other elements of judicial independence, how to spot it, how to achieve it and why it matters, especially on the Supreme Court. [read post]