Search for: "Harris v. Department of Corrections" Results 41 - 60 of 325
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Dec 2021, 3:11 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Pasternak is also correct that recommending one among several reasonable courses of conduct does not give rise to a legal malpractice claim. [read post]
14 May 2020, 1:13 am by CMS
He says that it was not correct of Mr Harris QC to say that much of the evidence has already been gathered to support their methodology. 1235: Mr Hoskins QC says Mr Harris QC’s proposed methodology does not reveal what is practicable at certification stage. 1232: Lord Briggs asks if ‘preferability’ is different to ‘commonality’ in the Canadian legislation. [read post]
20 Jan 2009, 12:35 am
Justice Department drew upon letter from Secretary of State Dean Acheson in its brief in Brown v. [read post]
16 Mar 2014, 3:38 pm by Law Lady
CREWS, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Appellee. 1st District.Dissolution of marriage -- Child custody -- Attorney's fees -- Error to award wife fees incurred in litigation of child custody dispute where marital settlement agreement ratified by trial court during pendency of dispute explicitly provided that each party would be responsible for own attorney's feesJOANNIS SAPICAS SALISELE, Appellant, v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 7:19 pm by Joy Waltemath
Aguas was brought by an employee of the state department of corrections (DOC) who alleged she was sexually harassed by her supervisor. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 5:06 pm by Colin O'Keefe
Daniel Schwartz chimes in on yesterday's hot topic, Thompson v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 5:31 am by Susan Brenner
[It] enabled Harris and his colleagues to monitor the activities of [Burgos]. . . . [read post]
22 Apr 2015, 6:55 am by Law Lady
HARRIS, Appellee. 5th District.Injunctions -- Repeat violence -- Modification -- Where respondent was incarcerated and properly brought to trial court's attention his desire to appear telephonically for hearing, and trial court noted that respondent was to appear telephonically but failed to issue order directed to Department of Corrections requiring respondent to appear telephonically at specified time and date, trial court erred in denying motion for modification of… [read post]