Search for: "State v. N. N."
Results 2641 - 2660
of 21,423
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
" Citing S.C. v New York City Dept. of Educ., 97 AD3d 518, 519-520, quoting Shor v Touch-N-Go Farms, Inc., 89 AD3d 830, the Appellate Division explained that in order "[to] establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision [of an employee], it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury. [read post]
1 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
" Citing S.C. v New York City Dept. of Educ., 97 AD3d 518, 519-520, quoting Shor v Touch-N-Go Farms, Inc., 89 AD3d 830, the Appellate Division explained that in order "[to] establish a cause of action based on negligent hiring, negligent retention, or negligent supervision [of an employee], it must be shown that the employer knew or should have known of the employee's propensity for the conduct which caused the injury. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 6:00 am
Aspiras v. [read post]
28 Aug 2010, 12:55 pm
Salamea v. [read post]
14 Jan 2019, 11:43 am
Doner & Co., 293 F.3d 164, 173 n.5 (4th Cir. 2002). [read post]
23 Jul 2009, 5:51 am
Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 349 n.6 (1978); United States v. [read post]
19 Jun 2013, 6:45 pm
Atlantic States Bankcard Ass’n, 896F.2d 1421, 1430-31 (4th Cir. 1990); Erebia v. [read post]
26 Aug 2013, 7:38 am
In Dennis v. [read post]
7 Feb 2011, 2:34 pm
(See, Ghory v. [read post]
3 Jul 2012, 10:06 am
Pioneer State Mut. [read post]
13 Oct 2023, 9:45 am
Co. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2008, 3:04 pm
In Insurance Institute of Michigan, et al. v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 3:08 am
I can only hope it provokes a review of the adequacy of the measures available to combat the international trade in fake goods by preventing their transhipment through Member States".The IPKat shares the judge's sentiments. [read post]
29 Jul 2024, 9:59 am
In a ruling regarding the collective complaint Unión General de Trabajadores (UGT) v. [read post]
15 Apr 2019, 2:13 pm
Robert v. [read post]
28 Oct 2010, 2:01 pm
“The California Supreme Court has described the interest protected by meal break provisions, stating that „[a]n employee forced to forgo his or her meal period . . . has been deprived of the right to be free of the employer? [read post]
25 Feb 2018, 2:45 pm
The Supreme Court found, among other things, that the State’s burden to overcome the presumption of pretrial release is substantial because “[i]n our society liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 7:37 pm
Judge N. [read post]
21 Mar 2011, 5:27 am
See Docket Entry 102 n. 3 (stating that 160 days is “the minimum undisputed number of days the statute of limitations was tolled”); see also Tr. 5. [read post]
27 May 2010, 3:24 pm
Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2009-1386. [read post]
