Search for: "Doe v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc" Results 441 - 460 of 594
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Apr 2011, 5:44 pm
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 575 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 4:10 am by Howard Friedman
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (7th Cir., March 31, 2011), the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Wal-Mart's firing of an employee for violating the company's anti-harassment policy. [read post]
8 Apr 2011, 4:04 am
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 1192945 (7th Cir. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm by Bexis
Richardson–Merrell, Inc., 584 A.2d 1383, 1386-88 (1991); Makripodis v. [read post]
28 Mar 2011, 12:12 pm by Lyle Denniston
  Arguing for the store chain in Wal-Mart Stores v. [read post]
27 Mar 2011, 7:47 pm by Gareth
Applying Wal-Mart Stores, I conclude that the released conduct would not arise out of the  “identical factual predicate” as the conduct that is the subject of the settled claims. 396 F.3d at 107 (citation omitted). c. [read post]
26 Mar 2011, 5:00 pm
Innovention Toys successfully sued MGA Entertainment,Wal-Mart Stores, and Toys "R" Us for infringing 7,264,242, "which claims a chess-like, light-reflecting board game. [read post]
25 Mar 2011, 1:21 pm by Barry Barnett
  Does dividing discovery into class and merits phases make sense -- for judicial economy? [read post]
16 Mar 2011, 9:15 am by Schachtman
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 160 F.3d 358, 359–60 (7th Cir. 1998) (Posner, C.J.) [read post]
8 Mar 2011, 5:10 am by Jim Shore
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Michigan federal district court ruled that an employee who was terminated by Wal-Mart after testing positive for validly obtained medical marijuana stated no legal claims for wrongful discharge. [read post]
7 Mar 2011, 12:30 am by Greg Mersol
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 131 S.Ct. 795 (2010), now pending before the United States Supreme Court, discrimination cases still are being brought and may, under the proper circumstances, be certified. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 4:02 pm by INFORRM
Problem areas include what “unaware” means, the exclusion of electronic communications such as emails and the very broad common law definition of “publication” which has not changed since Duke of Brunswick v Hamer (1849) 14 QB 185. [read post]