Search for: "Hopkins v. Hopkins" Results 801 - 820 of 1,156
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jul 2012, 12:26 pm by David Oscar Markus
Magistrate Judge James Hopkins' questions in a clear, steady voice. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 9:30 am by Greg Ablavsky
John’s UniversityCOMMENT: Deborah Rosen, Lafayette College11:00-12:45: Slavery, Movement, and the Law: New Approaches to Gradual Abolition(hopefully close to the session above)PRESIDING: Daniel Hamilton, University of Illinois “Not very Fanatical on the Subject of Slavery:” Fugitive Slaves and the Persistence of Slavery in New Jersey, 1804-1846 James Gigantino, University of Arkansas The Conflict of Laws in the Crossing of Borders: Slavery and Antislavery… [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 8:29 am by familoo
Yours faithfully Solicitors David Jockelson Miles and Partners Kate Hammond Miles and partners Sarah Cove Miles and Partners Amanda Dench Miles and Partners Pauline Lloyd Ewings & Co Peggy Ray Goodman Ray Gwen Williams Goodman Ray Hilka Hollmann Goodman Ray Joanna Bosanquet  Goodman Ray Michael Bourdages Goodman Ray Christina Blacklaws  TV Edwards David Emmerson T V Edwards Lorraine Green TV Edwards Susan Fitzgerald TV Edwards Valerie Greenfield  Fisher Meredith LLP… [read post]
10 Jun 2012, 8:38 pm by Charon QC
Lawcast 207: Adam Shutkever and Jeremy Hopkins of Riverview Chambers on new legal services delivery Today I am talking to Adam Shutkever, COO of LawVest, which launched Riverview Law in February  – Riverview Law is the trading name of LawVest Limited – and  Jeremy Hopkins, late of 3 Verulam Buildings where he was a clerk. [read post]
6 Jun 2012, 11:00 am by Hunton & Williams LLP
In its decision, the EEOC substantially relied upon the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Price Waterhouse v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 1:32 pm by Lorene Park
She also pointed to the legal context prevailing at the time the ADA was enacted, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, wherein the High Court determined that the “because of” language in Title VII meant that the plaintiff had to prove gender played a “motivating part” in the employment decision. [read post]
14 May 2012, 11:30 am by Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
Cornfeld, John Hopkins University Research Scientist and Task Force advisor Dr. [read post]