Search for: "Angell v. Angell" Results 661 - 680 of 8,679
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jul 2009, 10:51 am
Here's a guy -- Ara Melkonians -- who I'm definitely glad is no longer with the L.A. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 8:53 am
Some people lately like to talk about how government employees are overpaid (at least when pensions and benefits are taken into account) and allegedly have "cushy" jobs.But without taking a position on that debate, do you know any other job where your employer is permitted to breach (1) his contract with you, and (2) an express a collective bargaining agreement, and not pay you (as well as thousands of other employees like you) despite these employment promises? [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 2:40 am
I was on a plane and out-and-about nearly all day, but when I returned to the intertube this evening, I saw this case. [read post]
7 Apr 2025, 4:50 pm
To say that the Court of Appeal was nonplussed about the conduct of the trial judge in this case would be a substantial understatement.The Court of Appeal reverses a $10 million verdict in favor of the plaintiff in this sexual harassment case and remands for a new trial. [read post]
13 Mar 2008, 12:10 pm
If Edwards Angell axes associates, expect it to come tomorrow. [read post]
22 Jun 2015, 1:45 pm by Kent Scheidegger
Along with the underlying Fourth Amendment question, Los Angeles v. [read post]
24 Aug 2015, 1:54 pm
Beckloff from the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Seven beginning August 17 until September 30, 2015.Judge Sam Ohta of the Los Angeles Superior Court, will be sitting Pro-Tem in Division Eight August 31, 2015Today's DJ features Justice Hoffstadt's latest column, Brady's Self-Help Exception, re People v. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 8:33 am
 A classic citation along these lines is Pierotti v. [read post]
12 Dec 2007, 12:38 am
Netanel (University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law) has posted Maharam of Padua v. [read post]
26 Jan 2007, 1:33 pm
Click here to read the published opinion in Wagner v Columbia Pictures: Wagner v. [read post]