Search for: "Burnette v. Davis"
Results 1 - 15
of 15
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Jun 2018, 4:29 pm
Jurors must be trusted to faithfully adhere to their duties (R v B). [read post]
17 Sep 2010, 7:49 pm
Cathleen Burnett. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 9:30 pm
ICYMI: Mark Graber on Donald Trump and the Jefferson Davis Problem (NYT).Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 4:17 pm
Davis (argue)Improper eyewitness ID instructionFailure to give limiting instruction re: gang evidenceMarch 6--Thursday--a.m.State v. [read post]
10 May 2009, 7:18 am
Burnette, 2009 U.S. [read post]
16 Jul 2017, 4:23 pm
On Friday the Government announced that Sir Ian Burnett has been appointed as the new Lord Chief Justice, to replace the retiring Lord Thomas from the 2 October 2017. [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 4:12 pm
A Message [pdf] published this week by the Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ, Sir Terence Etherton MR and Sir Andrew McFarlane P, outlines how the Circuit and District Judges sitting in Civil and Family should deal with remote working. [read post]
27 Jan 2017, 12:01 pm
On appeal, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court.' Burnett v. [read post]
28 Jan 2011, 1:04 pm
Cathleen Burnett. [read post]
20 Apr 2008, 6:45 am
Bankruptcy Court - Covington 08a0199n.062008/04/16 Burnett v. [read post]
13 Nov 2013, 12:16 pm
(the link is to the decision that is being appealed), and my students Nathan Davis, Sara Liss, and Paulette Rodriguez-Lopez worked on the brief. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 11:50 am
• Robert V. [read post]
10 Sep 2019, 11:50 am
• Robert V. [read post]
29 Dec 2017, 7:34 am
And singer, songwriter and producer T Bone Burnett delivered a telling contribution to the US Copyright Office's review of Digital Millennium Act 'safe harbor' provisions in the USA, saying in a video that whilst the law that was supposed to "balance the internet's openness with creators' ability to earn a living wage from their work ..... [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 12:12 pm
Instead, he concluded that the Respondent's unilateral action was unlawful because the Respondent hired a workforce consisting solely of its predecessor's Union-represented employees and that the Respondent was a "perfectly clear" successor within the meaning of NLRB v. [read post]
