Search for: "State v. Settle"
Results 2881 - 2900
of 15,564
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Mar 2007, 2:00 am
Allegedly as a result of Watkins' actions and failure to inform Howard about those actions, Howard was forced to settle an employment discrimination claim made by another employee for a total of $253,000, and sought compensation from Watkins for those damages. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 10:49 am
A&T Siding v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 10:49 am
A&T Siding v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 10:49 am
A&T Siding v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 10:49 am
A&T Siding v. [read post]
19 Jun 2012, 10:49 am
A&T Siding v. [read post]
27 May 2011, 5:17 am
United States v. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 7:33 pm
” […] [I]n Learned v. [read post]
22 Jul 2024, 5:13 am
The court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claim pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) because he failed to state a cause of action (Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87 [1994]). [read post]
28 Jul 2014, 1:02 pm
(Lara v. [read post]
18 Dec 2012, 4:02 pm
So the Supreme Court's decision in eBay v. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 5:30 am
Section 75 provides that certain civil servants "shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty provided in this section except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges. [read post]
4 Jan 2013, 6:13 am
Pennsylvania is within the appellate jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which has yet to rule on this issue. [read post]
26 Jul 2017, 4:00 am
" Further, as the court held in Trainosky v Civil Service Empls. [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 5:30 am
Section 75 provides that certain civil servants "shall not be removed or otherwise subjected to any disciplinary penalty provided in this section except for incompetency or misconduct shown after a hearing upon stated charges. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 7:08 am
The Defendants relied on an early 20th Century authority of Channell J in Gelmini v Moriggia [1913] 2 KB 549, where it was clearly stated that: “…in all cases of contract the person who has to pay has the whole of the day upon which payment is due in which to pay; therefore until the expiration of that day an action cannot be brought because until then there is no complete cause of action. [read post]
23 May 2013, 12:43 pm
There was a famous case called Maddox v. [read post]
4 Jan 2011, 5:02 am
Ten years later, in State v. [read post]
6 Apr 2009, 10:00 pm
VAN SKIKE V. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 7:00 am
The Facebook claims appear to be equally vulnerable to invalidation based on the currently muddled state of statutory subject matter jurisprudence. [read post]
