Search for: "Taylor v. Taylor"
Results 461 - 480
of 4,729
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Apr 2011, 12:46 pm
Child enticement Sexual activity Masturbation is not sexual activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) which makes it a crime to use any means of interstate commerce to entice a child to engage in unlawful sexual activity. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 10:35 am
" Narell v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 11:07 am
But State v. [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 9:06 am
Today's advance release habeas law opinions: Taylor v. [read post]
11 Jan 2008, 11:02 am
FEC (on direct appeal, not a writ of certiorari) 07-371: Taylor v. [read post]
24 Jun 2009, 1:53 am
Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) G(G) & Anor, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1207 (12 June 2009) DT, R. v [2009] EWCA Crim 1213 (04 June 2009) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Central Bedfordshire Council v Taylor & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 613 (23 June 2009) High Court (Chancery Division) Estafnous v London & Leeds Business Centres Ltd. [2009] [...] [read post]
7 Dec 2021, 2:55 pm
The US Supreme Court Tuesday heard oral arguments in United States v. [read post]
25 Nov 2007, 4:59 am
Taylor v. [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 7:19 am
The case is Taylor v. [read post]
8 Apr 2022, 9:11 pm
In Taylor v. [read post]
3 Jul 2013, 3:30 am
National Labor Relations Board to determine if the National Labor Relations Act preempts the Taylor Law in certain situations involving employees of charter schools Buffalo United Charter Sch. v New York State Pub. [read post]
1 May 2013, 7:06 am
Taylor v. [read post]
4 May 2014, 11:00 pm
In Casey v. [read post]
4 May 2014, 11:00 pm
In Casey v. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 11:53 am
Keller Williams Realty (Photo credit: Wikipedia)In Taylor et al v. [read post]
18 Jan 2024, 3:20 am
Jane Lambert Patents Court (Michael Tappin KC) Merck Serono SA v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2023] EWHC 3240 (Ch) (19 Dec 2023)This was an appeal by Merck Serono SA ("Merck") against Mary Taylor's refusal to grant a supplementary protection certificate ("SPC") in respect of cladribine (see Merck Serono S.A. v Comptroller 26 May 2023 BL O/ [read post]
6 Jan 2020, 4:00 am
** In accordance with the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. [read post]
27 Jan 2011, 3:23 am
Individuals performing services for a public employer may be designated "non-employees" by statute Levitt v NYC Office of Collective Bargaining, 273 AD2d 104For the purposes of collective bargaining Article 14 of the Civil Service Law -- the Taylor Law -- applies to all individuals in the services of a public employer except judges, individuals in the military service and public employees designated managerial or confidential. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 9:27 am
In Tom Geise Plumbing, Inc v. [read post]
23 Jan 2013, 8:02 am
In the recent case (Taylor v. [read post]
