Search for: "BAKER v BAKER" Results 1521 - 1540 of 4,848
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Mar 2019, 5:16 am by Anushka Limaye
And Brian Corcoran examined how Mondelez v. [read post]
11 Jun 2019, 11:13 am by Vishnu Kannan
Trump and the Trump legal team’s brief in the case of Trump v. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 4:32 pm by Quinta Jurecic
Stewart Baker posted the Steptoe Cyberlaw Podcast. [read post]
6 Oct 2018, 5:11 am by Anushka Limaye
Matthew Kahn posted the Oct. 1 joint unclassified filings in the Qassim v. [read post]
24 Feb 2008, 9:00 am
Baker (07-219), on the legality of the $2.5 billion punitive damages award resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill under federal maritime law. [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 4:04 am by Amy Howe
  In an interview for NPR, Nina Totenberg previews King v. [read post]
16 Oct 2015, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
In Baker v Irondequoit CSD, 70 NY2d 314, the Court of Appeals held that a union's duty to process a former employee's grievance, under some circumstances, survives the employee's separation.The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_07272.htm [read post]
7 Aug 2014, 4:16 pm
First, I think Judge Sutton is most apt to accept the view that the Supreme Court’s 1972 summary refusal to hear an appeal in Baker v. [read post]
7 Jul 2022, 2:05 pm by INFORRM
In Sweeny v Ireland [2017] IEHC 702 (23 November 2017) Baker J in the High Court struck down section 9(1)(b) of the Offences Against the State (Amendment) Act, 1998 (also here), which provided for a wide offence of withholding material information from Gardaí, on the grounds that it infringed the right to silence derived from the right to freedom of expression in Article 40. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 9:58 pm by Dwight Sullivan
As we previously noted, in its New decision, quoting Baker v. [read post]
4 Jul 2008, 4:32 pm
Baker is to 21st-century jurisprudence what Dickens' Jarndyce v. [read post]
22 Jun 2007, 4:30 pm
Judge Erdmann's concurring opinion in United States v. [read post]