Search for: "MATTER OF C A" Results 8041 - 8060 of 36,786
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Mar 2014, 2:24 pm
We affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Rule 56(c), SCRCP (stating that summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue exists as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law); Jones v. [read post]
24 Sep 2014, 10:21 am by Abbott & Kindermann
” However, the Court of Appeal found that CSTI improperly focused on the EIR’s designation rather than its substance “[T]he ‘fact that this EIR is labeled a “project” rather than a “program” EIR matters little…. [read post]
9 Mar 2023, 11:35 am by bndmorris
Nancy Soonpaa presented at two programs at AALS and moderated a third: Arc of Career, “What is AALS and Why does It Matter for My Career? [read post]
13 Nov 2022, 3:45 am by Kenneth Jones
Fortunately, Argast’s recommendations are within any organization’s reach: (a) recognize everyone has something to contribute, (b) youth and diversity have value, and (c) coaching and mentoring are key. [read post]
19 Apr 2020, 11:07 am by Giles Peaker
Given the urgency of the matter undertaking a dental nurse course was the only course of action I saw fit at the time. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 6:10 am by Lindsay A. Heller
” This matter involved defendant’s attempt to preserve his ability to visit with his daughters regularly, despite plaintiff’s attempt to relocate them across the country. [read post]
16 Jul 2021, 6:10 am by Lindsay A. Heller
” This matter involved defendant’s attempt to preserve his ability to visit with his daughters regularly, despite plaintiff’s attempt to relocate them across the country. [read post]
7 Dec 2015, 6:45 am
Respondent also instructed his staff to `lie to all comers’ regarding Respondent's whereabouts and other matters. [read post]
9 Aug 2024, 12:49 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
Canada: determined as matter of common law. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 1:33 pm
  In Ticheli, the Court of Appeals reversed a trial court and upheld the enforceability of a non-compete clause in an employment agreement even though (a) the clause contained a very broad geographical and subject-matter scope, (b) the non-competition requirement was to last for two years, (c) the employee was terminated by the employer seeking to enforce the clause, and (d) the issue of enforceability was not raised in the trial court. [read post]