Search for: "Cross v Welcome"
Results 81 - 100
of 911
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jan 2018, 6:25 am
The court reserved for trial the decision on whether an adverse inference jury instruction was warranted for spoliation of an HR rep’s notes (Tipp v. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 10:21 am
(Cross-posted at Human Rights in Ireland blog) [read post]
12 Jan 2007, 9:59 am
Comments on this paper would be most welcome! [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 11:13 am
In R v. [read post]
3 Nov 2014, 7:32 am
The public is welcome to attend. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 2:25 am
Greater precision would have been very welcome in this regard. [read post]
5 Oct 2023, 4:45 pm
The limitation of Order 82, however, is that it only allows for a dismissal of meanings which cross the threshold of perversity. [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 2:07 am
” As a result, it will be welcomed by the investment arbitration community. [read post]
28 Nov 2011, 3:28 am
Welcome back to the human rights roundup. [read post]
28 Mar 2010, 10:55 am
Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth v. [read post]
9 Jul 2009, 7:51 am
-v. [read post]
24 Dec 2008, 4:10 am
In addition, it would have ignored the simple fact that the employee had to work all hours to earn the bonus - straight plus overtime.So, if your eyes are crossed, welcome to wage and hour law. [read post]
15 Jun 2022, 8:00 am
AA and Others v North Macedonia, Systematic Pushbacks and the Fiction of Legal Pathways (EU Immigration & Asylum Law & Policy Blog, June 2022) [text]Hoping for Zero: Danish Externalization Plans to Rwanda and a Politics of Deterrence (Border Criminologies Blog, June 2022) [text]Of Borders and Hypocrisy: The Very Thin Line Between Protection and Expulsion (RLI Blog, June 2022) [text]Other frontlines: Third-country nationals fleeing the war in Ukraine are not welcome in EU… [read post]
31 Jul 2017, 5:56 am
There was cross-party agreement during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill that section 73 was never intended to be used in this way and the loophole it had created was liable to ‘fuel a vicious cycle of under-funding’.Although not directly linked to its repeal, section 73 has also been declared incompatible with EU law, in the second ITV v TV CatchUp case, discussed by the IPKat here.The repeal is expected to create what DCMS described as ‘a… [read post]
13 Oct 2019, 12:54 pm
Data concerning health and the role of consent in medical records, clinical practice and biobanks were analysed crossing EU demands with national legislations and practices, showing that clarification in some areas is a necessity. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:23 am
I could not agree more with this argument and to Justice Stevens’ credit I would add his majority opinion in Reno v. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 4:56 am
After opening and welcoming remarks by the Chairman of the Association, Prof. [read post]
28 Jul 2012, 5:44 pm
The appeal by way of case stated in the “Twitter joke” case (Chambers v DPP) has been allowed. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 6:12 am
Public Authorities Access to Personal Data In light of questions raised in the on-going challenges to the Privacy Shield, that are currently before the European Court of Justice (Case T-738/16, LQDN v Commission; and Case C-311/18, DPC v Facebook Ireland and Maximillian Schrems), the Commission took the opportunity during the third annual review to clarify the U.S. legal framework (i.e., current U.S. surveillance laws), the available oversight mechanisms, such as the Privacy Shield… [read post]
7 Oct 2008, 9:06 pm
Piszczek v. [read post]
