Search for: "Taylor v. Charter"
Results 61 - 80
of 159
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Jan 2020, 7:26 am
Charter. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 6:00 am
This paper first considers the facts of R v Taylor and discusses the decisions of the trial court, the Alberta Court of Appeal, and the SCC. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 1:42 am
Class 46 blogger and Taylor Wessing associate Christian Tenkhoff provides an analysis of Case T-106/14 Universal Utility International GmbH & Co.KG v OHIM, in which the General Court of the European Union ('GC') tackled registrability of the word mark GREENWORLD.* Spain: Did the “Google Tax” really change the market? [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 2:55 am
Birgit steps into the debate that that these filings have triggered, focusing on what Taylor’s obsessive filing entails in terms of freedom of expression.* Jurisdiction in online Community trade mark infringement cases: what's the story? [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 6:16 am
Chuff, and Taylor B. [read post]
10 Jan 2018, 12:36 am
An appeal in this case will be heard in June 2018 (see below) Subject Access Requests There were two important Court of Appeal decisions on SARS *Dawson-Damer and others v Taylor Wessing LLP and others (Information Commissioner intervening) – [2017] 1 WLR 3255. [read post]
12 Jun 2008, 11:08 am
In Canada v. [read post]
25 Jun 2018, 1:00 am
Commissioners for HMRC v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc (Scotland), heard 11 Apr 2018. [read post]
29 Jun 2008, 12:05 pm
Taylor Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland 08a0340n.06 USA v. [read post]
29 Jun 2008, 12:05 pm
Taylor Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland 08a0340n.06 USA v. [read post]
5 Nov 2014, 4:00 am
Like the treatment wing of a hospital, the holding cells area of a police station is not “a Charter-free zone”: R. v. [read post]
24 Oct 2010, 5:53 pm
source privilege under either the Canadian Charter or the Quebec Charter. [read post]
2 May 2010, 9:01 am
One case (Parker v. [read post]
2 May 2010, 9:01 am
One case (Parker v. [read post]
9 Apr 2017, 4:33 pm
On 5 April 2016 Sir David Eady handed down judgment in the case of EZE Group Ltd v Taylor Marshall Ltd, (heard 23 March 2017) Events 28 April 2017, “Conference on Freedom of Expression Online,” Nicosia, Filoxenia Conference Centre, Cyprus Media Law in Other Jurisdictions Australia In the case of Defteros v Google Inc & Anor [2017] VSC 158 John Dixon J granted summary judgment to Google Australia (Pty) Ltd in a defamation claim. [read post]
10 May 2011, 4:21 am
Nothing contained in section seventy-five or seventy-six of this chapter shall be construed to repeal or modify any general, special or local law or charter provision relating to the removal or suspension of officers or employees in the competitive class of the civil service of the state or any civil division. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
9 May 2020, 2:20 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
"Similarly, in Szumigala v Hicksville Union Free School District, 148 AD2d 621, the Appellate Division, citing Cheektowaga v Nyquest, 38 NY2d 137, held that a seniority clause in a Taylor Law agreement violated §2510 of the Education Law when it permitted seniority in different tenure areas to be combined for the purposes of determining seniority with the District for the purposes of layoff.However, in Gee v Board of Educ. of Rochester City Sch. [read post]
