Search for: "Works v. State"
Results 5241 - 5260
of 60,419
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Mar 2016, 12:59 pm
The case of Numeric Analytics, LLC v. [read post]
18 Mar 2024, 6:00 am
Degree of permanence of the work relationship. [read post]
10 May 2019, 11:37 am
Gerald Godoy v. [read post]
26 May 2023, 1:24 pm
See United States v. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 9:22 am
Guy, et al. v. [read post]
5 Mar 2010, 10:33 am
My post a month ago on AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
13 Jun 2013, 3:26 pm
Which of November 10 or 11 works for you?" [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 6:47 am
Lewis for the proposition that such information is protected from disclosure by the work product doctrine, case-by-case determinations will now be required to determine whether a party must provide such information to its opponent in discovery in California state court cases. [read post]
10 Jun 2011, 5:11 am
(photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrgranito/4527639541/)Legal Resume v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 9:04 am
Pix Credit OperaCanada I am delighted to share for comment the pre-publication discussion draft of a contribution I am working on. [read post]
29 Jun 2010, 12:16 pm
Freedom of Information Commission, Department of Public Works v. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 6:34 am
The appellants in U.S. v. [read post]
29 Dec 2016, 6:34 am
The appellants in U.S. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2024, 11:00 pm
’s employer and the utility company “raised an issue of fact” as to whether S.C. work was protected by the state’s Labor Laws.Upon reversing the lower court’s dismissal decision, and reinstating the claims, the AD1 unequivocally noted that an open manhole was an “elevation-related risk” that was subject to the Labor Law’s protections.There sure was some hole in that argument.# # #DECISIONC. v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y.,… [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 4:00 am
The court also stated that the penalty imposed, termination, was not so disproportionate to Employee’s offense as to shock its sense of fairness, explaining that the evidence established that Employer’s requirement that Employee participate in processing training was not in excess of its authority.In addition, the court mentioned that Employee had not observed the rule of "work now, grieve later" and that Employee had failed to show that any exceptions to the… [read post]
23 Jun 2023, 8:42 am
As Justice Kagan stated: “This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two words seldom appearing in the same sentence. [read post]
7 Jul 2015, 8:35 am
The recent case of Doe v. [read post]
8 Apr 2017, 12:15 pm
One recent case, entitled Ricci v. [read post]
8 Apr 2017, 12:15 pm
One recent case, entitled Ricci v. [read post]
21 Aug 2023, 6:21 pm
The case is Vectren Infrastructure Services Corp. v. [read post]
