Search for: "Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Smith"
Results 21 - 40
of 90
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2018, 10:06 am
Smith Water Products Co., No. 123, N.Y. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
[Smith v Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612]Demoting an employee for sleeping on duty on two occasions, although a hearing officer found the employee’s supervisor had “condoned” such conduct and the hearing officer had recommended a suspension without pay for three weeks. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
[Smith v Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612]Demoting an employee for sleeping on duty on two occasions, although a hearing officer found the employee’s supervisor had “condoned” such conduct and the hearing officer had recommended a suspension without pay for three weeks. [read post]
3 Jul 2017, 9:01 pm
Turner: Timing Is EverythingThis case began with a lawsuit by two individual taxpayers, Jack Pidgeon and Larry Hicks, who sought to stop the City of Houston from paying spousal insurance benefits for employees married to a person of the same sex. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 7:22 am
Smith-Wythe Airport Commission, et al. [read post]
17 Apr 2017, 1:26 pm
The second is to consider the range of non-legal normative governance rules that might apply. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 7:51 am
Smith v. [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 4:00 am
JonesLabor and Employment Law, Government and Administrative Law, Insurance Law Supreme Court of Texas McDonnell v. [read post]
22 Feb 2016, 4:36 pm
However, interest in purchasing this type of insurance did not develop until 1939, when in New York Dock Co. v. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 11:57 am
We would like to thank Reed Smith’s Kevin Hara for helping to put this together.Daimler AG v. [read post]
9 Oct 2015, 4:40 pm
Co. v. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 8:29 pm
As the Court has shown us time and again in its immunity jurisprudence, the government can do no wrong, because the government -- like the King -- is sovereign. [read post]
22 Sep 2015, 8:29 pm
As the Court has shown us time and again in its immunity jurisprudence, the government can do no wrong, because the government -- like the King -- is sovereign. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
10 Aug 2015, 2:11 pm
Case style: Neese v. [read post]
26 Jun 2015, 12:00 pm
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 7:27 pm
Among the plaintiffs (respondents here) were homosexual persons, some of them government employees. [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 11:29 am
See e.g., Pfeil v. [read post]
2 Aug 2014, 11:22 am
When addressing this discretion, the court should consider Smith LJ’s four tests from the case of Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting Co [1895], being that damages should be awarded: where the injury to the claimant’s legal rights is small; where the injury to the claimant is capable of being estimated in money; where the injury to the claimant can be adequately compensated by a small money payment; and where the case is one in which it would be… [read post]
2 Jul 2014, 7:19 am
Wisconsin v Yoder (406 U. [read post]
