Search for: "State v. Duty" Results 1 - 20 of 32,094
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Sep 2024, 2:14 pm by Kevin LaCroix
In reviewing the “prong one” claims as to discriminatory lending, the court first found, with clear reference to the Delaware courts’ decision in the Marchand v. [read post]
26 Sep 2024, 8:26 am by Eleonora Rosati
Hobbs provided a thorough review of the relevant case law on recusals, including a reference to the UK Post Office scandal in Bates v Post Office Limited [2019] EWHC 871 (QB), paragraphs [27]-[77] as well as HCA International Ltd v Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) [2015] EWCA Civ 492. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 12:43 pm by Eugene Volokh
And any among us who don't find themselves built in this way for the mission at hand, any of us who don't recognize our inherent duty to prop each other up, any of us who might find themselves predisposed to a culture of complaint, have a much simpler avenue than broad-based cyber whining. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 6:06 am by centerforartlaw
The complaint aptly states that the story of how the exhibition came to be is “a truth stranger than fiction. [read post]
25 Sep 2024, 4:00 am by Eric Segall
All of which leads us to Presidential Immunity.In the 1974 decision United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2024, 7:32 am by Daniel M. Kowalski
In reversing the denial of the L-1A petition in Matter of Z-A-, Inc. the AAO stated: Here the record shows that the Beneficiary, in his role as Vice President, will continue to rely on the support of the eight staff members in Japan and two employees in the United States to accomplish non-managerial duties, and that the purpose of his transfer is to oversee the short-term and long-term expansion of the Petitioner’s presence in what is a new market. [read post]
23 Sep 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
For example, perhaps a capitalist state will pass pro-labor legislation that cuts into profits and slows down capital accumulation. [read post]
23 Sep 2024, 5:00 am
Stating that the plaintiff had a duty to mitigate damages, the Court concluded that the duty included obtaining insurance to offset medical costs when such coverage was reasonably available. [read post]