Search for: "The People v. English"
Results 1401 - 1420
of 2,887
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
ALERT: CHANGE IN LAW – RETALIATION PROTECTION NOW GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES COMPLAINING OF KNOWN VIOLATIONS
25 May 2023, 1:40 pm
Garcia-Brower v. [read post]
2 Sep 2024, 4:16 am
The court held that the term was intended to be used as a term of art in the policy and regarded it as a technical medical term rather than a word which is used in ordinary English. [read post]
9 Dec 2010, 10:45 am
The decision may only be available in French and German, but the little sign that says "Image not found" is definitely in English. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 5:00 am
v) Is the Secretary of State entitled to rely on the defence of act of state? [read post]
6 Oct 2013, 10:50 pm
As many anxiously await the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) decision in Blackhorse v. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 3:46 pm
The question before the justices in Federal Republic of Germany v. [read post]
The Supreme Court Cannot Ignore the National Security Implications of the So-Called ‘Jawboning’ Case
17 Mar 2024, 6:00 am
What does this mean in plain English? [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 7:49 am
Nautilus, Inc. v. [read post]
26 May 2023, 12:42 pm
Abbott v. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 3:42 am
Inter-American Court of Human RightsIndigenous People Maya Kaqchikel from Sumpango v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 4:57 pm
Shortly before Nollan was decided, in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v County of Los Angeles, Justice Scalia joined the Court majority in ruling that under the Constitution’s “Just Compensation Clause,” a “temporary taking” denying a landowner of all use of his property entitles that landowner to compensation for the “temporary” loss of that use. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 4:57 pm
Shortly before Nollan was decided, in First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v County of Los Angeles, Justice Scalia joined the Court majority in ruling that under the Constitution’s “Just Compensation Clause,” a “temporary taking” denying a landowner of all use of his property entitles that landowner to compensation for the “temporary” loss of that use. [read post]
14 Jul 2009, 12:25 pm
Re: United States v. [read post]
26 Nov 2010, 11:59 am
The factual background in Starglade Properties v. [read post]
6 May 2014, 12:37 pm
Pahnke v. [read post]
20 Oct 2015, 7:30 am
State v. [read post]
8 Jun 2015, 12:22 am
This Kat posted a short report of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales, judgment delivered by Lord Justice Floyd in Warner-Lambert Company, LLC v Actavis Group Ptc EHF & Others [2015] EWCA Civ 556, and has in the meantime been cogitating and ruminating (hard as that is for a non-ruminant carnivore) on what it all means.To remind readers on where we were before this appeal decision, Warner-Lambert marketed the drug pregabalin for three authorised indications -- epilepsy,… [read post]
2 May 2016, 4:09 pm
HUD is clearly much less interested in helping people obey the law than in punishing people who fail to obey it. [read post]
24 Dec 2010, 6:13 am
Rosen v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 4:53 am
People v. [read post]
