Search for: "Davis v. Department of Employment SEC."
Results 1 - 20
of 25
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2015, 3:40 am
Here’s news from Davis Polk’s Ning Chiu: The SEC announced a whistleblower award of nearly half a million dollars to a former company officer whose report of misconduct resulted in an SEC enforcement action. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 4:56 am
Reviving her suit for a second time, the appeals court reversed summary judgment and remanded (Davis v. [read post]
18 Sep 2015, 5:11 am
” Sec. 14(b) allows states to enact bans on certain agreements between unions and employers. [read post]
12 Apr 2018, 7:01 pm
See Department of Labor Issues Guidance of Misclassification of Workers. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 1:13 am
Analyst Sec. [read post]
24 Nov 2023, 6:08 pm
For example, in Thomas v. [read post]
16 Aug 2015, 6:28 pm
Sec. 12112(d)(4)(A). [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 12:40 pm
The Court also appears to have released holds on a number of petitions that it had held routinely pending its recently issued opinions in Davis v. [read post]
27 Dec 2018, 8:56 am
” Walling v. [read post]
27 Jun 2010, 12:58 pm
Finally, there was the Google/YouTube v. [read post]
23 Oct 2008, 6:54 pm
Employment Sec. [read post]
3 Feb 2024, 9:52 am
The first clause—what John Vlahoplus helpfully refers to as the “Positions Clause”—identifies the government offices and other employments that a covered rebel or insurrectionist is prohibited from “hold[ing]. [read post]
13 Jan 2017, 12:10 pm
SEC: Whether the five-year statute of limitations in a general provision governing penalties and forfeitures applies to claims by the SEC seeking disgorgement of illegally obtained profits. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 9:58 am
Davis, and Coffy v. [read post]
15 Jan 2021, 8:01 am
SEC. 2. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 12:01 pm
Tomko , No. 05-4997 Sentence for tax evasion is confirmed where: 1) the the district court did not commit procedural error at sentencing, as the record shows the district court did not fail to meaningfully consider the 18 U.S.C. sec. 3553(a) factor of general deterrence; and 2) the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant, as the court conducted a thorough analysis of the sec. 3553(a) factors and gave logical reasons for the variance from the sentencing guidelines… [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 8:49 am
See, e.g., Davis v. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 8:49 am
See, e.g., Davis v. [read post]
18 Mar 2016, 8:49 am
See, e.g., Davis v. [read post]
15 Oct 2021, 7:38 am
Rodney Davis of Illinois, Mr. [read post]
