Search for: "Law v. Cross" Results 1801 - 1820 of 15,224
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Aug 2011, 7:57 am
Category: Recent Decisions;Contract Law Opinions Body: Below are today's contract law Appellate Court opinions:AC31174, AC31674, AC32066 - Cadle Co. v. [read post]
21 Oct 2024, 1:34 am by INFORRM
The Regulations cover multiple dimensions of network data security, including personal information protection, security of important data, cross-border transfers, network platform service providers’ obligations, and regulatory supervision and administration. [read post]
27 Dec 2024, 5:28 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Here, Lee established that LMB’s representation on the employment discrimination claims continued at least through March 29, 2002 (see Zorn v Gilbert, 8 NY3d at 934; Shumsky v Eisenstein, 96 NY2d at 170-171; Amodeo v Kolodny, P.C., 35 AD3d at 774; see also Grace v Law, 24 NY3d at 212). [read post]
15 Dec 2016, 1:00 am by Sarah McKeeve, Brodies LLP
Introduction This case concerns the lawfulness of a ban on smoking and tobacco in the buildings and grounds of the State Hospital, Carstairs, a high-secure hospital in central Scotland. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 10:57 am by Michael Lowe
The Texas Legislature is in session right now and one thing that is being considered by the lawmakers this year is a new law proposed by Representative Harold V. [read post]
9 Jan 2023, 4:01 am by Guest Blogger
Sakithyan “Sai” Bala2L, Faculty of Law, University of Windsor __________________ [1] Matt Keeley, “Lawyer Bashed for Representing Brother-in-Law Over Wife’s Sister in Divorce”, Newsweek (19 October 2022), online: < https://www.newsweek.com/lawyer-bashed-representing-brother-law-over-wifes-sister-divorce-1753398>. [2] R v Neil, [2002] 3 SCR 631 at para 19. [3] The Law Society of Ontario, Rules of Professional Conduct,… [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 6:13 am by CMS
The Court of Appeal confirmed Hamblen J’s decision and dismissed the Owners’ cross appeal on this point. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 2:57 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
The Supreme Court dismissed the insurance companies’ appeal and allowed the cross-appeal by the third to tenth respondents, individuals diagnosed with pleural plaques who cross-appealed a court finding that they did not have title and interest to be parties to the case. [read post]