Search for: "Rodriguez v Grant"
Results 181 - 200
of 767
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Nov 2018, 8:51 am
” We grant Menendez’s and Rodriguez’s petitions for review. [read post]
2 Nov 2018, 12:39 pm
In last year’s Pena-Rodriguez v. [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 8:02 am
The justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Swartz v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 6:32 am
The case is styled, Gilberto Rodriguez v. [read post]
16 Oct 2018, 5:00 am
In last term’s Jennings v. [read post]
5 Oct 2018, 7:17 am
Rodriguez v. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 2:37 pm
Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm
In Janus v. [read post]
30 Jul 2018, 4:49 am
[USA] v Johnston, 145 AD3d 1240, 1240 [2016]; Matter of Barnes v Venettozzi, 135 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2016]; Rodriguez v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 126 AD3d 1183, 1184-1185 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 912 [2015]). [read post]
24 Jul 2018, 4:39 am
At the Penn Journal on Regulation’s Regulatory Review, Sarah Paoletti maintains that “[d]ue to th[is term’s] ruling [in Jennings v. [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 8:00 am
In Rodriguez v. [read post]
22 Jul 2018, 9:30 pm
Hayes and Rodriguez v. [read post]
20 Jul 2018, 7:09 am
Affirming dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims on summary judgment, the appeals court also rejected the plaintiff’s assertion that the value of the discounted meals must be added to the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes (Rodriguez v. [read post]
13 Jul 2018, 5:51 am
United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), which is codified at section 775.021(4)(a) of the Florida Statutes, requires that each charged offense include an element the other does not.FRANCISCO RODRIGUEZ V. [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 3:53 pm
Weakley v. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 6:55 am
And in NAACP v. [read post]
20 Jun 2018, 3:51 am
The Supreme Court breached the “sanctity” of the jury room in Pena-Rodriguez v. [read post]
19 Jun 2018, 6:56 am
”) Rodriguez v. [read post]
14 Jun 2018, 11:49 am
Consequently, equitable estoppel did not foreclose the retail giant’s statute of limitations defense (Rodriguez v. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 4:18 am
[FN2] Given the [*3]absence of detailed facts, the legal malpractice cause of action should have been dismissed (see Janker v Silver, Forrester & Lesser, P.C., 135 AD3d 908, 910 [2016]; Rodriguez v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 126 AD3d at 1185-1186; Kreamer v Town of Oxford, 96 AD3d 1128, 1128 [2012]; compare Soule v Lozada, 232 AD2d 825, 825 [1996]). [read post]
