Search for: "Phillips v. Schools"
Results 81 - 100
of 584
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2014, 12:40 pm
John Lyon School v Helman [2014] EWCA Civ 17 is, I think, a bit of a no-brainer. [read post]
18 Jul 2020, 9:40 am
Koppelman has made one, and I will join him – with just a few small differences – here.To assess Koppelman’s claims, I am going to return to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. [read post]
14 Jun 2021, 7:55 am
Supreme Court Bulletinhttp://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/sct/2020-2021update.htmlA petition for certiorari was filed in one case on 5/28/21: Phillips, et al. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 9:40 am
They refer to some of the usual suspects in the history of corporate law (Berle & Means; Dodge v. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 10:28 am
Analysis of Wednesday’s argument in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. [read post]
8 Apr 2013, 4:00 am
* Here, said the court, there was substantial evidence in the record to support the determination that the individual was guilty of misconduct As to the penalty imposed but the appointing authority, dismissal, the Appellate Division, citing Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. [read post]
21 Feb 2024, 12:15 pm
Federal Courts Bulletinhttps://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/2024.html Phillips v. [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 3:36 am
EEOC Whether the ministerial exception to the ADA applies to a parochial school teacher. [read post]
28 Jun 2010, 9:59 pm
Lord Phillips considered that although the Scheme does not govern all circumstances where a pupil can be denied access to a school, as the circumstances of this suspension fell within the Scheme, the failure to comply with it rendered the suspension unlawful. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 4:42 pm
In McDonald v. [read post]
21 May 2012, 8:13 am
The deep south was not ready to accept public defense for indigent, mainly black defendants, not unlike how it refused to accept Brown v School Board. [read post]
29 Dec 2011, 11:38 am
By Michael Kiely and Phillip Tate The California Supreme Court released its opinion today in California Redevelopment Association v. [read post]
6 Apr 2011, 2:34 pm
ZAM v CFW & TFW: “suing for libel in secret” On Hyperinjunctions: John Hemming MP: abuse of power, and privilege I’d like to thank Lawtel, Westlaw, Cassons For Counsel, City University Law School, David Phillips & Partners Solicitors, Inksters Solicitors, Iken, LBC Wise Counsel, Carrs Solicitors, JMW Solicitors – Manchester, Pannone and Cellmark for sponsoring the podcast – and the free student… [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 9:46 am
Doe v. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 6:27 am
If it is found that the third parties in this case were negligent then the respondent will be liable under its non-delegable duty of care to the appellant. [1] Brown v Nelson & Ors [1971] LGR 20 [2] Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293, 301 [3] Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 [4] A (Child) v Ministry of Defence [2005] QB 183, 47 per Lord Phillips of Worth [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 6:27 am
If it is found that the third parties in this case were negligent then the respondent will be liable under its non-delegable duty of care to the appellant. [1] Brown v Nelson & Ors [1971] LGR 20 [2] Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293, 301 [3] Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 [4] A (Child) v Ministry of Defence [2005] QB 183, 47 per Lord Phillips of Worth [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 2:45 pm
In addition to Before Roe v. [read post]
13 May 2008, 11:32 am
" And indeed, in the collection you can find plates for such classic cases as Ex Parte Quirin, Phillip Morris USA v. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 1:16 pm
The employer-respondent will be represented by Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin, LLP. [read post]
2 Mar 2012, 2:02 am
*** In association with The Lawyer I’d like to thank Lawtel, Westlaw, Cassons For Counsel, City University Law School, David Phillips & Partners Solicitors, Inksters Solicitors, Iken, LBC Wise Counsel, Carrs Solicitors, JMW Solicitors – Manchester, Pannone and Cellmark for sponsoring the podcast – and the free student materials on Insite Law – appreciated. [read post]
