Search for: "Ward v. Federal Insurance Co." Results 21 - 40 of 70
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
At the same time, courts recognize that every disciplinary situation is different and are pre-disposed to accord “much deference” to the employer’s determination regarding the penalty to be imposed [Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182], especially with respect to quasi-military organizations such as a police department or a similar law enforcement agency [Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32].In Gradel v Sullivan Co. [read post]
20 Oct 2017, 2:49 am by NCC Staff
But years later, Marshall made his thoughts clear about the treaty clause in an 1823 decision called American Insurance Co. v. [read post]
17 Aug 2016, 11:22 am by Cynthia L. Hackerott
Therefore, federal contractors faced with disparate impact claims under EO 11246 may choose to avail themselves of the defense contained in the Supreme Court’s 1989 decision in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. [read post]
15 Apr 2016, 8:10 am
Blum, 73 AD2d 237, 241-242 [2d Dept 1980], Medicaid is a "co-operative Federal-State program operated under State direction, but subject to Federal statutory and regulatory guidelines. [read post]
29 May 2015, 2:24 pm by John Elwood
After a long argument about grammar, the Court will decide whether a mandatory minimum ten-year sentence enhancement for a child-pornography conviction triggered by a prior state law conviction for sexual abuse applies even when the prior conviction did not “involv[e] a minor or ward. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 1:28 pm
Cal.), a case in which I’ve been hired to consult, and which the California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, The Calguns Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation are supporting. [read post]
18 Nov 2014, 9:51 am
Porter Co Sheriff's Dept., Seventh Circuit: Appellant brought a §1983 complaint based on a pretrial denial of medical care for a bullet wound to his abdomen. [read post]
31 Mar 2013, 4:45 am by Gritsforbreakfast
"Reasonable suspicion" is not required under Texas law except for physical mobile tracking devices like those at issue in US v. [read post]