Search for: "State v. Barker" Results 81 - 100 of 423
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
13 May 2011, 11:01 am by 1 Crown Office Row
Birmingham City Council v Barker (Equal Pay Act : Other establishments) (Rev 1) [2010] UKEAT 0056_10_0905 (9 May 2011) – Read jugment One of the allegations made about contingency fees is that they encourage lawyers to cut corners because they are not paid by the hour. [read post]
23 Feb 2009, 1:30 pm
With thanks to Christopher Stockdale at John Barkers of Grimsby, we have had news of another Shorthold Assured Tenancy deposit case, Piggott v Slaven, Great Grimsby County Court 23 February 2009. [read post]
21 Feb 2020, 4:53 pm by INFORRM
The response paper states that the duty of care will “only apply to companies that facilitate the sharing of user generated content, for example through comments, forums or video sharing”. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 4:48 am
AUTO - GRAVES AMENDMENT - LEASED TRAILERZawatsky v Barker Materials, Ltd. [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 6:23 am
KBR didn't rape Barker; a civilian (allegedly) did, and the original DMI and Alternet posts falsely stated that Barker had to arbitrate that civil suit against the rapist. [read post]
13 Aug 2014, 3:44 am by Ryan Dolby-Stevens, Olswang LLP
    [1] International Energy Group Limited v Zurich Insurance plc UK [2012] EWHC 69 (Comm) [2] Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20 [3] International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc UK [2013] EWCA Civ 39 [4] BAI (Run off) Ltd (In Scheme of Arrangement) and others v Durham and others [2012] 1 WLR 867 [5] Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 The post Case Preview: International Energy Group Ltd v… [read post]
11 Jan 2013, 8:01 am by Rory Little
  (That doctrine began with Justice Brennan’s 1972 Warren-era decision in Barker v. [read post]
27 Dec 2011, 10:03 am by Thomas Kaufman
By Thomas Kaufman and Jonathan Barker On December 21, 2011, a California Court of Appeal held in Aleman v. [read post]
13 Jan 2009, 6:30 am
On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court applied the four-part test set out in Barker v. [read post]