Search for: "State v. Worthy" Results 261 - 280 of 2,308
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Dec 2007, 8:03 am
On Thursday, we noted that the Ohio Supreme Court had upheld two tort reform provisions in Arbino v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 4:05 am by Marty Lederman
Participating States must also comply with various other requirements, including those that protect against waste, fraud, and abuse; those that protect the health and safety, and the privacy, of Medicaid beneficiaries; those that ensure that the States adequately accomplish the goals of the program (see the recent decision in Douglas v. [read post]
28 Dec 2011, 8:17 am by Kent Scheidegger
  Judge Aldisert of USCA3 lets appellate defense counsel have it with both barrels in United States v. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 7:39 am by Adam Baker
Martel Building Ltd. v Canada, [1997] 129 FTR 249 (FCTD), revd [1998] 163 DLR (4th) 504 (FCA), leave to appeal refused, 2000 SCC 60, [2000] 2 SCR 860, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc60/2000scc60.html Facts Note: This case deals with the possibility of a tort action in negligence for breach of a duty of care during negotiation of a contract (specifically during the solicitation and evaluation of tendered bids). [read post]
– Tyler 2016) (concluding that “specialized” training provided by employer qualified as an interest worthy of protection and supported restrictive covenant); Republic Services, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
The fact that this was found not to be the case with regard the second part of the statement is worthy of analysis in light of the recent ruling in Morice. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 5:21 pm by Alfred Brophy
Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent declaration in Dred Scott v. [read post]
17 Mar 2008, 3:44 am
Mar. 13, 2008); and the potential effect if any on the decision in United States v. [read post]
22 Nov 2011, 5:00 am by Wystan M. Ackerman
  I asked, if insurers were to move towards increased use of arbitration following AT&T v. [read post]