Search for: "MacDonald v. MacDonald" Results 201 - 220 of 541
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2020, 1:42 am by UKSC Blog
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton) v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL, heard 7 Mar 2017 Arcadia Petroleum Ltd & Ors v Bosworth & Anor, heard 10-11 Apr 2017 Vedanta Resources Plc & Anor v Lungowe & Ors, heard 15-16 Jan 2019 Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd, heard 8 May 2019 Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation & Ors v Commissioners of Inland Revenue,… [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 11:50 am
MacDonald, of Toronto firm, Markson Macdonald said, shortly after the Supreme Court's February 28, 2008 ruling. [read post]
23 Mar 2020, 2:30 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
MacDonald & Anor v Cambroe Estates Ltd (Scotland), heard 4 December 2019. [read post]
30 Jul 2017, 3:15 am by Barry Sookman
https://t.co/ee8KV9VJMS -> Proprietary Algorithms for Public Purposes – Slaw https://t.co/AsEDSWu2uN -> Google Fights Against Canada https://t.co/fEgthMn2nf -> Computer and Internet Updates for 2017-07-25 https://t.co/SlVnCAmPqO -> News Alert – Tribunal determination PPCA v Foxtel: https://t.co/SFSBtxZl2a -> Google seeks to use U.S. law to battle Supreme Court of Canada's order to change global search results https://t.co/YRBZjIbugK -> 'Kodi… [read post]
20 Jul 2020, 2:26 am by UKSC Blog
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: Keefe (by his litigation friend Eyton) v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL, heard 7 Mar 2017 Arcadia Petroleum Ltd & Ors v Bosworth & Anor, heard 10-11 Apr 2017 Vedanta Resources Plc & Anor v Lungowe & Ors, heard 15-16 Jan 2019 Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation & Ors v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, heard 27 June 2019 Unwired Planet International Ltd & Anor… [read post]
13 Feb 2015, 10:53 am by Ed. Microjuris.com Puerto Rico
– 1988 Published Works The Marine Advisor, An Admiralty Newsletter Representative Cases MacDonald v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 7:17 am by emagraken
MacDonald) the Plaintiff was involved in two collisions, the first in 2004 and the second in 2006.   [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Further, opined Supreme Court, "New York courts have deferred to BCB's expertise in applying and interpreting the provisions of the CBL," citing New York City Dept. of Sanitation v MacDonald, 87 NY2d 650.BCB had found that Directive 2230 does not constitute a unilateral change to a term of condition of employment, thus DOC did not make a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, noting that in prior cases BCB had held that criteria for… [read post]
20 Sep 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Further, opined Supreme Court, "New York courts have deferred to BCB's expertise in applying and interpreting the provisions of the CBL," citing New York City Dept. of Sanitation v MacDonald, 87 NY2d 650.BCB had found that Directive 2230 does not constitute a unilateral change to a term of condition of employment, thus DOC did not make a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of collective bargaining, noting that in prior cases BCB had held that criteria for… [read post]
9 Jan 2008, 11:33 am
MacDonald of Stark & Stark in the firm's New Jersey Law Blog [read post]
27 Feb 2012, 11:12 am by David Lat
Kessler, Jeffrey MacDonald, John Mulhern, Joseph A. [read post]
29 Nov 2012, 11:04 am by Staci Zaretsky
Don’t worry, we’re sure the homeless dude is just busy working on his appeal in MacDonald v. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 6:13 am by Karen Dyck
She has been closely involved in issues of professional ethics throughout her career; in fact, she was the young lawyer whose move between firms spurred the action in MacDonald Estate v. [read post]
25 May 2012, 7:55 am by emagraken
MacDonald. [48] I conclude that on December 16, 2010, the plaintiff entered into a binding settlement agreement. [read post]
23 Jul 2015, 4:50 pm by INFORRM
In order to obtain an injunction against Google, Mr Niemela was required to meet the three part test set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in RJR-MacDonald v. [read post]