Search for: "State v. Mars"
Results 4141 - 4160
of 4,942
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2016, 6:36 am
Mar. 31, 2016), a lengthy decision that followed a sexual harassment trial in which the jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 on her quid pro quo sexual harassment claims under the state and federal law. [read post]
25 Feb 2022, 11:33 am
Reynolds traced the influence of the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 1:10 pm
The first is BNSF Railway Co. v. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 9:25 am
Mar. 7, 2014) (quoting Rosenson v. [read post]
17 Sep 2018, 3:13 am
Co. v. [read post]
3 Sep 2018, 8:24 am
Judgment was given on 21 Mar 2018. [read post]
26 May 2017, 1:36 pm
City of Del Mar (1998) 69 Cal.App.4th 166, 176; Saad v. [read post]
26 Mar 2007, 11:21 pm
Mar. 2, 2007). [read post]
13 Apr 2009, 5:00 am
Goldberg, 2009 NY Slip Op 02353 (2d Dept Mar. 24, 2009). [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 11:32 am
Drivers for Uber and Lyft claimed they are employees, not independent contractors. [read post]
23 Dec 2021, 7:40 am
Requiring a person to serve an otherwise lawfully imposed sentence during a pandemic does not give rise to a claim of cruel and unusual punishment that can be successfully asserted in a MAR State v. [read post]
3 Apr 2017, 3:32 am
Even in these cases, however, there is a potential trap for the unwary plaintiff if the subject business entity is a limited liability company, as nicely illustrated by a Manhattan federal judge’s decision last month in Sullivan v Ruvoldt, Opinion and Order, 16 Civ. 583 [SDNY Mar. 24, 2017]. [read post]
17 Jan 2020, 12:56 pm
Mar. 27, 2018). [read post]
26 Aug 2024, 4:37 am
In a quintet of decisions over the past 25 years, the Appellate Division – First Department held that it will give lower courts the benefit of “significant leeway” in approximating damages for fiduciary breach: Keizman v Hershko, 52 AD3d 204 [1st Dept 2008] [“a trial court may be accorded significant leeway in ascertaining a fair approximation of the loss where, as here, a breach of fiduciary duty has been proved”]; Herman v Feinsmith, 39 AD3d 327… [read post]
28 Feb 2018, 6:27 am
The Eleventh Circuit found otherwise in Evans v. [read post]
18 Nov 2022, 8:01 pm
Paragraph (c) specifically references the ongoing investigation concerning Mar-A-Lago: (c) The Special Counsel is further authorized to conduct the ongoing investigation referenced and described in the United States' Response to Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief, DonaldJ Trump v. [read post]
16 Sep 2021, 4:43 pm
In Z.B. v. [read post]
3 May 2014, 8:56 am
Lust v. [read post]
22 May 2020, 9:56 am
As the Supreme Court recognized in United States v. [read post]
23 Sep 2021, 1:09 pm
Co. v. [read post]
