Search for: "Test Plaintiff"
Results 8481 - 8500
of 21,967
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Nov 2016, 7:35 am
That case was consolidated with the state-plaintiffs’ case. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 6:55 am
“If Congress intended the salary requirement to supplant the duties test, then Congress, and not the Department, should make that change. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 5:30 am
Tests applied by courts in determining if claims of unlawful discrimination and, or, retaliation can survive a motion for summary judgmentLangton v Warwick Val. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 5:18 am
We still do not have a “so transformative it is fair use” test. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 3:30 am
If Congress intended the salary requirement to supplant the duties test, then Congress, and not the Department, should make that change. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 6:52 pm
In a footnote, the court was careful to state it was not ruling on the legality of the salary-level test itself—but only that the DOL was not authorized to utilize the salary-level test as amended under the final rule. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 5:01 pm
Finding that the Department had overstepped its bounds, Judge Mazzant wrote, “If Congress intended the salary requirement to supplant the duties test, then Congress and not the department, should make that change. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 5:01 pm
Finding that the Department had overstepped its bounds, Judge Mazzant wrote, “If Congress intended the salary requirement to supplant the duties test, then Congress and not the department, should make that change. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 4:28 pm
The Order Enjoining the Overtime Regulations The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Department from implementing its revised rule on December 1, 2016. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 3:02 pm
The State Plaintiffs seek to apply the injunction nationwide. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 3:02 pm
The State Plaintiffs seek to apply the injunction nationwide. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 1:37 pm
The plaintiffs asserted a “medical monitoring” claim against Just For Men’s manufacturer in an attempt to obtain compensation for future testing to determine whether the plaintiffs had developed an allergy to p-Phenylenediamine. [read post]
MetLife Properly Limited Plaintiff’s Disability Benefits Under the Mental/Nervous Limitations Clause
22 Nov 2016, 10:51 am
” The Court noted that MetLife “expressly requested additional information pertaining to Plaintiff’s tremors, but no such information was available given Plaintiffs lack of treatment and testing therefor. [read post]
MetLife Properly Limited Plaintiff’s Disability Benefits Under the Mental/Nervous Limitations Clause
22 Nov 2016, 10:51 am
” The Court noted that MetLife “expressly requested additional information pertaining to Plaintiff’s tremors, but no such information was available given Plaintiffs lack of treatment and testing therefor. [read post]
22 Nov 2016, 4:00 am
She then wrote to the plaintiff’s lawyer on March 22, 2016 requesting an adjournment of the trial. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 2:05 pm
The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appealed. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 1:17 pm
The test going forward is whether evidence is “relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” not whether it is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 1:17 pm
The test going forward is whether evidence is “relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” not whether it is “reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 11:55 am
So far, all three “test” claims have been tried in a St. [read post]
21 Nov 2016, 6:20 am
Courts can presume deception from literal falsity, but even then the plaintiff must prove harm causation, “here, that consumers chose Defendant’s products rather than those of Plaintiff. [read post]
