Search for: "State v. R. G." Results 2161 - 2180 of 4,530
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
27 Jan 2014, 2:03 pm
Since all of the requested information was not provided, the 30-day period in which Progressive was obligated to pay or deny the Hospital's claim did not begin to run as was held in Westchester Medical Center v State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., Hospital for Joint Diseases v New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Co, New York & Presbyterian Hosp v Countrywide Insurance Co. and Montefiore Medical Center v Government Employees Insurance Co. [read post]
27 Jan 2014, 6:48 am by Joy Waltemath
The employee presented direct evidence of disparaging remarks made by his supervisor about his, and other employees,’ use of leave, raising a question of fact as to whether the discharge decision was motivated by discriminatory animus (Ash v Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, January 22, 2014, Steeh, G). [read post]
26 Jan 2014, 10:00 pm
Based on that, Judge Moore stated that the issue of whether G&R was a special employer should have been one decided by the jury. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 12:28 am by Kevin LaCroix
  The January 16 Opinion In a January 16, 2014 opinion written by District Court Judge James G. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 12:28 am by Kevin LaCroix
  The January 16 Opinion In a January 16, 2014 opinion written by District Court Judge James G. [read post]
19 Jan 2014, 9:12 pm
Germany Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International LawJohn R. [read post]
16 Jan 2014, 4:00 am by Administrator
Rights-Based Strategies to Address Homelessness and Poverty in Canada: the Constitutional Framework Martha Jackman and Bruce Porter Social Rights Advocacy Centre Working Paper, November 2012 Excerpt: pp.67-72 G. [read post]
15 Jan 2014, 8:47 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
  Implications For Employers Texas is not considered a friendly jurisdiction for class actions in the first instance, but this case demonstrates that state courts will not hesitate to apply the same “rigorous” analysis to certification sought under the state rules that federal courts apply in actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [read post]