Search for: "Wilson v. Rule"
Results 2081 - 2100
of 2,535
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Jun 2010, 4:08 am
”Rejecting Newman’s argument to the contrary, the Appellate Division said that it was not required that the settlement agreement constitute a quid pro quo for the dismissal of pending disciplinary charges, so long as Newman’s waiver of rights to a pre-termination hearing was knowingly and freely made.Contrasting the “ineffective agreement” considered in Vega v Civil Service Commission, 385 F Supp 1376, an agreement that the Appellate Division characterized as… [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 4:31 pm
See Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. [read post]
Oregon's Court Of Appeals Rules That The Offer Of Judgment Rule Does Not Apply To Insurance Disputes
2 Jun 2010, 9:34 am
The Rule encourages settlements by providing a way for a defending party to limit its liability and by forcing plaintiffs to take a hard look at the value of their claims when faced with an Offer of Judgment.However, in Wilson v. [read post]
2 Jun 2010, 6:15 am
FACTUAL and PROCEDURAL HISTORY Miracle Star, owned and operated by Jeffrey and Staretta Moffatt, provides drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services at a location in Lancaster, California. [read post]
28 May 2010, 12:27 pm
Ky 2009); Wilson v. [read post]
28 May 2010, 2:56 am
[Agents] Hooton and Wilson went to [Smith]'s home to follow up. . . [read post]
26 May 2010, 3:00 am
Wilson Mgmt. [read post]
20 May 2010, 11:35 pm
Wilson, 130 S. [read post]
20 May 2010, 4:33 am
Wilson v. [read post]
19 May 2010, 7:28 am
The Louisiana Court of Appeals' 1979 ruling in Thompson v. [read post]
7 May 2010, 2:34 pm
Wilson v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 9:43 am
In Wyeth v. [read post]
6 May 2010, 8:42 am
The case of Wilson v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 5:00 am
In Schefer v. [read post]
5 May 2010, 3:42 am
Co. v Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, 58 AD3d 1, 9-10 [2008]; Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP v Fashion Boutique of Short Hills, Inc., 10 AD3d 267, 271 [2004]. [read post]
1 May 2010, 6:14 am
The parties maintain the confidentiality of their compromise by submitting a stipulation for dismissal under Rule 41, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 1:30 pm
Circuit called for en banc review of the panel’s ruling. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 1:52 am
Madoff Investor Lawsuit Against the SEC Dismissed: In an April 20, 2010 order (here), Central District of California Judge Stephen V. [read post]
25 Apr 2010, 4:27 pm
N.J.A.C. 13:45A-17.6 (2009), CHAPTER ADMINISTRATIVE RULES OF THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, Disclosure statement. 11. [read post]
24 Apr 2010, 7:59 am
Wilson, 677 F. 2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981). [read post]
