Search for: "CONVERSE v CONVERSE" Results 7761 - 7780 of 15,439
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Mar 2015, 6:58 am by Joy Waltemath
The magistrate also recommended denying summary judgment on the issues of punitive damages and backpay (Zabell v. [read post]
8 Mar 2015, 4:09 am
Nike now owns Converse and the sales of the sneaker were $1.7 billion in 2014. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 6:44 pm
Nevertheless, plaintiff and defendant continued to have conversations concerning the transfer to each other of their interests in the two Brooklyn properties. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 2:33 pm
This conversation, like many of its kind, will develop naturally, in fits and starts. [read post]
I have been assigned to the hearing in Beghal v Director of Public Prosecutions (Case Preview) which starts today. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 6:24 pm by Joy Waltemath
A long-time city employee who walked off the job after a new sheriff gave her an upsetting written reprimand, which she claimed contained false statements and was issued in retaliation for her complaints over policy changes, failed to make out a prima facie case of retaliation because the reprimand was not a materially adverse employment action, determined the Eighth Circuit, affirming summary judgment for the sheriff (Wagner v. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 4:30 pm by INFORRM
Two hidden cameras were placed in the room in which the interview was to take place, transmitting the recording of the conversation to a neighbouring room in which Ms Balmer and an insurance specialist had taken up position. [read post]
5 Mar 2015, 3:31 pm
The much-awaited Supreme Court oral argument in King v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 10:30 pm by Elizabeth A. Bokermann, Esquire
 That way, one party does not gain a windfall or conversely is not penalized when an unexpected event occurs in the future.Written by Elizabeth A. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 10:43 am by Lyle Denniston
On Friday morning, when the Justices start their private conversation on the case of King v. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 3:13 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
Lord Toulson, Lord Kerr and Lord Neuberger in the majority stated that Hamblen J had reached an entirely proper conclusion that the role played by the appellant, based mainly on its fundraising relating to a small sum solicited by the Sea Shepherd Conversation Society (SSCS), had been of minimal importance. [read post]