114,528 research outputs found
[Marianne Franks]
No full textPhotograph of Marianne Franks. She wears a top with flowing sleeves and a V-neck, as well as a floral headpiece. She looks to the right of the image
Recommended from our members
[Marianne Franks]
No full textPhotograph of Marianne Franks. She wears a top with flowing sleeves and a V-neck, as well as a floral headpiece. She looks to the right of the image
[Marianne Franks]
No full textPhotograph of Marianne Franks. She wears a top with flowing sleeves and a V-neck, as well as a floral headpiece. She looks to the left of the image
Recommended from our members
[Marianne Franks]
No full textPhotograph of Marianne Franks. She wears a top with flowing sleeves and a V-neck, as well as a floral headpiece. She looks to the left of the image
Lane v. Franks
No full textOn June 19, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the scope of public employee free speech with its decision in Lane v. Franks. The Court granted certiorari in order “to resolve discord among the Courts of Appeals as to whether public employees may be fired—or suffer other adverse employment consequences—for providing truthful subpoenaed testimony outside the course of their ordinary job responsibilities.” The unanimous Lane decision, which affirmed in part and reversed in part an opinion by the Eleventh Circuit, held that the First Amendment protects a public employee from retaliatory employer discipline where the employee testifies at trial, pursuant to a subpoena, and when such testimony is not required by his or her duties as an employee. However, the Court also ruled that the public employer in Lane could not be held liable in his individual capacity for damages because he enjoyed qualified immunity from suit. Lane adds its voice to the preexisting Pickering v. Board of Education and Garcetti v. Ceballos frameworks of public employee speech. Lane is important because it further clarifies the Court’s public employee speech doctrine, while also providing more definite limits to Garcetti by asking whether the speech “is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties.
Levantine attitudes towards the Franks during the early Crusades (490/1096 - 564/1169)
No full textThe period of the Crusades was one of the most important periods in the
history of both Western Europe and the Middle East, for it was during this period
that the peoples of Western Europe made their first major incursion on eastern soil.
The result of this was that an unprecedented amount of contact was established
between East and West, forcing each side to become more closely acquainted with
the culture of the other. As far as this cultural exchange is concerned, one of the
most significant parts of the crusading period was that encompassing the first two
crusades and their aftermath (490/1096-564/1169), as it was during this period that
crusaders and easterners first clashed with each other, and were forced to learn
much about each other. This sudden clash and forced acquaintance resulted in the
development of certain attitudes on each side towards the other. This thesis concerns
itself with the development of the attitudes of the Muslim, Christian and Jewish
communities towards the Franks (western crusaders) in the major theatre of conflict
of the area, the Levant.
In the thesis as many texts as possible from the literature of the period are
examined, in order to extract information from them concerning the developments
in Levantine knowledge of and attitudes towards the Franks. The texts examined
include both contemporary and later historical, geographical and judicial texts from
the area, and also local works of literature. In addition to the Muslim, Christian and
Jewish texts, and for the sake of comparison and completeness, brief consideration
is also given to a number of works of Byzantine and Frankish writers. Naturally, use
is also made of secondary works by modern scholars. In this way this thesis provides
a detailed examination of cross-cultural inter-faith relations during this formative
period
Admissibility of Voiceprints Not Limited to Corroborative Purposes Unted States v. Franks
No full textON FEBRUARY 12, 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided United States v. Franks,\u27 affirming a district court ruling, which permitted the use of voiceprints for purposes of identification and marking the first occasion in which a circuit court had held such evidence admissible
Sharp Curves Ahead: Analyzing Dedications to Public Use in Louisiana after Webb v. Franks Investment Co.
No full textThe article offers information on the history, purpose and significance application of the dedication law by Louisiana courts in transfer ownership case of Webb v. Franks Investment Co. It discusses the judicial decision of the Louisiana Supreme Court in the case of St. Charles Parish School Board v. P & L Investment Corp. applied the presumption for formal dedications transfer ownership of land to the public use
A Personal Special Relationship ? : Dean Acheson and Oliver Franks
No full textThe relationship between Dean Acheson and Oliver Franks was a complex affair. They shared common goals but did not automatically agree about means. Tensions were real, and often on matters of substance. Nevertheless, these years were characterised more by achievements than by failures. Overall, despite the evidence of stronger disagreements and quarrels than it has been traditional to reveal, it might be concluded that Acheson and Franks enjoyed a special partnership. It was special in the intimacy of consultation based on mutual admiration ; in the range of achievements ; and even in the way squabbles and potential ruptures were susceptible to its emollient influence.Une “relation spéciale” personnelle ? Dean Acheson et Oliver Franks.
Les relations entre Acheson et Franks furent complexes. Ils avaient les mêmes buts, mais ne s'accordaient pas nécessairement sur les moyens. Les tensions étaient réelles et concernaient souvent des questions importantes. Cependant ces années furent davantage marquées par des réussites que par des échecs. Globalement, et bien que les désaccords aient pu être plus importants qu'il n'est coutume de le dire, on peut conclure qu'Acheson et Franks, connurent une “entente spéciale”, spéciale par la qualité de leurs échanges, fondés sur une admiration réciproque ; spéciale par ses succès, et même par l'influence qu'elle eut sur les éventuels désaccords et ruptures.Hopkins Michael Francis. A Personal Special Relationship ? : Dean Acheson and Oliver Franks. In: Cahiers Charles V, n°35, décembre 2003. Le Royaume-Uni et les États-Unis depuis 1945. Une « Relation spéciale ». pp. 31-53
author-bios-SRD-19-0063.R1 – Supplemental material for The Network Structure of Police Misconduct
No full textSupplemental material, author-bios-SRD-19-0063.R1 for The Network Structure of Police Misconduct by George Wood, Daria Roithmayr and Andrew V. Papachristos in Socius</p
- …
