Search for: "Pete v. State"
Results 241 - 260
of 403
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Nov 2011, 8:31 pm
The CCA order in Skinner v. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 11:26 am
Pete Lund. [read post]
19 Oct 2011, 1:27 pm
The plain language of the statute stated that a franchisee or subfranchisor could bring an action against “any person who violates any provision of this chapter,” the court observed.The decision is JMF, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 3:59 pm
Finally, the evidence showed that the premises were controlled by the franchisee and the equipment used at the restaurant belonged to the franchisee.The decision, Conrad v. [read post]
6 Oct 2011, 10:28 am
Supreme Court review of a decision by the Iowa Supreme Court, rejecting the franchisor’s argument that a physical presence within the State of Iowa was a prerequisite to the state’s imposition of income tax on the franchisor (KFC Corp. v. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 10:22 am
United States was hazy. [read post]
27 Sep 2011, 9:13 am
Pete Lund, would likely serve as the framework for any future No-Fault “reform” legislation. [read post]
14 Sep 2011, 7:30 am
The New Orleans school desegregation case, Bush v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 8:07 am
Because the franchisor had no duty to disclose the historical financial performance of the store, the franchisee’s common law fraudulent omission claim, as well as her IFDA and “little FTC Act” claims, failed.The decision in 7-Eleven, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 8:04 am
The decision in Garbinski v. [read post]
23 Aug 2011, 8:23 pm
See Auer v. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 8:38 am
The rationale for extending the statute to situations such as this was to protect and enhance the commercial reputation of New York by regulating not only franchise offers directed at New York from other states, but also those originating in New York, from New York-based franchisors, in the court’s view.The July 7 opinion in A Love of Food I, LLC v. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 1:14 pm
App. 2011); see also Napper, 322 S.W.3d at 242 (citing Estrada v. [read post]
4 Jul 2011, 5:00 am
Eisbrenner 23,083 214,100 -- 11,487 248,670 V. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 5:12 pm
(My partner, Pete Vodola, argued and won on behalf of the annuity owner in both the Illinois and Virginia matters in Morey.) [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 5:52 am
The indictment represents the first federal charges filed from the 2011 V-GRIP effort. [read post]
30 Jun 2011, 5:52 am
The indictment represents the first federal charges filed from the 2011 V-GRIP effort. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 10:44 am
Massachusetts Bill Would Clarify Franchisee Status Under Labor LawsThis posting was written by Pete Reap, Editor of CCH Business Franchise Guide.A newly introduced Massachusetts bill would amend the Massachusetts labor, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation statutes by stating that an individual who owns a franchisee or is party to a franchise agreement would not be considered an employee of the franchisor. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:44 pm
It was the franchisee brother’s estate—not the franchisee brother—that refused to recognize the partnership and share the profits with the investor brother, the court observed.The decision in Marte v. [read post]
22 Jun 2011, 1:40 pm
" On February 23, 2011, in response to Federal court orders in Sierra Club v. [read post]
