Search for: "Defendant Doe 2"
Results 6241 - 6260
of 40,588
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Sep 2016, 7:30 am
Implicit in this ruling: if but one of the explanations offered by an employer in defending itself against allegations of unlawful discrimination survives, the employer will prevail. [read post]
1 Jul 2008, 3:40 pm
Apparently, so does the defendant in this case. [read post]
30 Jul 2014, 6:31 am
” To state a claim under the MWA, an employee must prove (1) he was an employee under the statute; (2) the compensation he alleges he is owed is a ‘wage’ under the statute; and (3) the defendant did not pay his wage in a timely manner. [read post]
17 Jun 2008, 1:18 am
Schwartz serve his sentence and see what the Florida Bar does. [read post]
13 Sep 2011, 4:30 am
., No. 2:10-cv-2266-RLH-GWF, 2011 WL 2976839 (D. [read post]
27 Aug 2012, 5:05 am
Therefore, the FLSA does not apply and the moving Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [read post]
7 Jul 2008, 10:59 am
Eli Lilly & Co., No. 181/07, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court (Toronto) (July 2, 2008). [read post]
11 Feb 2008, 9:49 am
notified Defendant “Doe 6” that it would comply with the subpoena in 15 days unless a motion to quash or other legal objection was filed. [read post]
30 Oct 2018, 6:17 am
The Appellate Division also reasoned that its decision was consistent with Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which permits a court to invalidate an arbitration agreement “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract. [read post]
29 May 2023, 11:00 pm
” §2333(d)(2). [read post]
24 Aug 2012, 6:32 am
§§ 1030(a)(2)(C), (a)(4), (a)(5)(B)-(C). [read post]
19 Jan 2021, 4:48 pm
” Id. at *2. [read post]
21 Feb 2014, 1:55 pm
The Appellate Division, Third Department has reached opposite conclusions with two different panels, one panel holding the test results not be admissible and another more recent panel, following Mills, supra, held that the People had no duty to prove that it is worth noting that the Court of Appeal's in its recent Atkins decision does not even cite the Mills case nor does it address the conflict within the Departments on the Two Hour Rule. [read post]
9 Jan 2014, 5:47 am
Further, defendant argued that Quinlan v. [read post]
3 Jan 2015, 10:39 am
Counsel for the defendant began. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 2:36 pm
Id. at 2. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 4:23 am
Intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs. 2. [read post]
17 Feb 2020, 4:23 am
Intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude, or into his private affairs. 2. [read post]
7 Apr 2009, 4:30 am
The affidavit of defendants' principal, which claimed that he orally protested plaintiff's services, does not serve to defeat plaintiff's motion. [read post]
31 May 2013, 11:20 am
Does that afford the transaction even greater protection? [read post]
