Search for: "State v. B. V."
Results 9141 - 9160
of 41,778
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Sep 2019, 2:11 pm
Most recently, the United States Court of Appeals considered the case of Verma v. 3001 Castor, Inc., d/b/a The Penthouse Club and/or The Penthouse Club@Philly, Case No. 18-2462 (3d Cir. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 2:08 pm
CMS states in the new Final Rule that it will publish further rulemaking to expand this reporting requirement after assessing the progress of its initial phased-in approach. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 2:08 pm
CMS states in the new Final Rule that it will publish further rulemaking to expand this reporting requirement after assessing the progress of its initial phased-in approach. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 1:54 pm
Courthouse and William B. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 11:29 am
F/K/A Milan Express Inc. v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 10:02 am
See Daubert v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 10:02 am
See Daubert v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 10:02 am
See Daubert v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 9:06 am
Landis & Loria B. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 8:00 am
Reese v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 6:21 am
The opinion is styled, Salvador Aviles v. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 2:05 am
In Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 8:05 pm
Up State Tower Co v Town of Cheektowaga, 2019 WL 4452413 (WDNY 9/17/2019) [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 1:21 pm
This directive also permitted the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division to redelegate the authority to issue Civil Investigative Demands to other DOJ Officials, including United States Attorneys.[5] From a practical standpoint, the redelegation of authority to issue Civil Investigative Demands from the Office of the Attorney General to the 94 United States Attorneys Offices has greatly expanded the issuance of Civil Investigative Demands around the country. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 9:42 am
AB 5 codifies the “ABC” test for employee status adopted by the California Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Dynamex v. [read post]
17 Sep 2019, 9:37 am
(iii) An action, including a personnel action described in section 2302(a)(2)(A) of title 5, constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal prohibited under subsection (g)(3)(B) of this section in response to an employee’s reporting an urgent concern in accordance with this paragraph. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 1:26 pm
The state supreme court ruled that the previous test for independent contractor v. employee needed to be further clarified for those working in these types of jobs. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 9:08 am
By Anthony B. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 9:06 am
The issues were: (1) whether ECHR Article 8 was engaged; (2) whether the SWP’s activities were “in accordance with the law”; and (3) whether the SWP’s activities were “necessary in a democratic society” in the interests of one of the objectives stated in Article 8(2), in accordance with the four-part test set out by the UK Supreme Court in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty’s Treasury (No 2) [2014] AC 700. [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 7:30 am
Advanced Digital Services; TMZ Productions, Inc.; EHM Production, Inc. d/b/a TMZ; TMZ.com; and Elizabeth McKernan v. [read post]
