Search for: "Doe v. Doe" Results 7581 - 7600 of 152,617
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Oct 2011, 5:30 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
This time around, the Court of Appeals does this in an employment discrimination case.The case is Rojas v. [read post]
29 May 2013, 8:06 am by Jordan Steiker
  The federal district court concluded that being innocent does not justify overlooking the time limit if the prisoner failed to act with due diligence, relying on the 1996 provision; that court also found Perkins’s evidence of his innocence to be unpersuasive. [read post]
13 Sep 2017, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
The Doctrine of  Collateral Estoppel does not bar litigating claims involving the same parties that were not previously considered in prior administrative or judicial actionsMehulic v New York Downtown Hosp., 2017 NY Slip Op 06416, Appellate Division, First DepartmentFollowing a number of adverse administrative rulings, Surana Mehulic brought an Article 78 action against her former employer, New York Downtown Hospital [Hospital] alleging it had impermissibly retaliated… [read post]
28 Dec 2016, 7:38 am by Joy Waltemath
On November 2, 2010, the employer’s CEO informed all employees that the plan would need to change in order to comply with the DOE rules issued on October 29, 2010. [read post]
17 Dec 2010, 3:24 am by Vivian Persand
A decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals has an interesting opinion on what happens when the Quality Vendor Program does not work as planned.In Tritschler v. [read post]
21 Apr 2010, 2:24 am by gmlevine
This does not mean that a respondent’s earlier registration necessarily defeats a prima facie case, but a complainant’s argument that it has a superior right because it has a trademark and the respondent does not, PPTP.NET, LLC v. [read post]
24 May 2024, 4:00 am by Ally Kvidt
” This principle was at the heart of the matter of the 2023 Supreme Court case of Culley v. [read post]