Search for: "A----. B v. C----. D"
Results 4341 - 4360
of 10,367
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2018, 5:27 am
Mr Justice Mann today handed down judgment today in the case of Sir Cliff Richard OBE v BBC [2018] EWHC 1837 (Ch)). [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 4:07 am
Resolving disputes pursuant to the arbitration clause set out in the City Manger's employment contract held not against public policyMatter of City of Newburgh v McGrane, 2009 NY Slip Op 51463(U), Supreme Court, Orange County, Judge Robert J. [read post]
2 Feb 2010, 12:54 am
The following portion of Madam Justice Low’s decision in Jeffers v. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 5:06 am
Stowe v. [read post]
18 May 2020, 6:51 am
Ogden v. [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 12:35 pm
In today’s case (Matharu v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 4:31 am
This includes (a) promotions in labor and non-competitive jobs, (b) job assignments, (c) transfers with a department regarding proximity of the job and (d) vacancies in departments.The court said neither the Town’s petition to stay arbitration nor the Grievance Board’s memorandum set out any reason why the “seniority” grievance submitted by Avolio does not fall within the ambit of the definition of a grievance.Finding that the Collective Bargaining… [read post]
2 Jun 2020, 8:06 am
Neitzer v. [read post]
4 Mar 2013, 1:34 pm
Allan D. [read post]
16 May 2007, 5:51 pm
§31-17-2.2-5(d). [read post]
15 Oct 2015, 5:00 am
Varela v. [read post]
1 Apr 2015, 10:27 am
Intellectual Ventures v. [read post]
10 Aug 2014, 8:00 pm
Namely, the termination letter clearly set out: (a) the reasons for the termination; (b) the calculation of the severance amount; (c) the requirement to sign the release; (d) confirmation of documents to follow; (e) a description of the benefit plan considerations; and (f) that the employee could obtain independent legal advice before signing the release. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 5:00 am
Sapp v. [read post]
10 Dec 2014, 1:16 pm
In today’s case (Shinzay v. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 1:52 pm
Mawji v. [read post]
27 Jul 2009, 8:20 am
In McMillan v. [read post]
26 Oct 2011, 10:02 am
He held:(a) the RTM can be acquired over any premises which consist of a self-contained building or part of a building, with or without appurtenant property (s.72(1)(a)), 2002 Act);(b) it was unnecessary to specify in any claim notice what, if any, appurtenant property was claimed, since the effect of a successful RTM application was to acquire the management of the building AND any property which was appurtenant to the building;(c) property is appurtenant if it is appurtenant to… [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 6:46 am
Schorse v. [read post]
14 Feb 2017, 6:56 am
Both forums agreed that in order to approve special assessments for (A) improvements, (B) urgent matters and (C) extraordinary matters only the vote of the majority of the unit owners present in the ordinary meeting is required. [read post]
