Search for: "Fail v. State"
Results 8801 - 8820
of 66,266
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Mar 2014, 9:13 pm
June 23, 2011) (allegation that defendant “failed to train, warn or educate” physicians failed to state a plausible claim because no such duty exists). [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 2:55 am
Minton sued in Texas state court and lost on a pretrial motion based upon the trial court's judgment that Minton had failed to present "a scintilla of proof . . . to support his claims. [read post]
25 May 2012, 5:35 am
Judgment In this judgment, after setting out the background Tugendhat J considered submissions made as to his statement in his earlier judgment that “trial with a jury will generally be ordered as a matter of discretion, in particular where the state, or a public authority, is a defendant” [35] He accepted that, in the light of cases such as H v Ministry of Defence ([1991] QB 103) and Racz v Home Office ([1994] 2 AC 45) he should have omitted the word… [read post]
7 Oct 2015, 5:48 am
") SC19207 Dissent - State v. [read post]
29 Mar 2023, 9:00 am
Nanouk v. [read post]
31 Dec 2015, 8:43 am
United States v. [read post]
28 Feb 2015, 6:32 pm
Michelle Rye v. [read post]
3 Jun 2013, 11:17 am
But in the Hillman v. [read post]
29 Sep 2020, 7:50 am
V. [read post]
23 Feb 2015, 6:43 am
") AC36037 - State v. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 8:36 am
Body: SC19341 - State v. [read post]
24 Jun 2013, 8:46 am
Ball State University. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
Even if the alleged misconduct was ministerial and not discretionary in nature, [Claimant] has failed to show a special duty (see id. at 199, 202-203; Hephzibah v City of New York, 124 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 903 [2015]). [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 6:00 am
Even if the alleged misconduct was ministerial and not discretionary in nature, [Claimant] has failed to show a special duty (see id. at 199, 202-203; Hephzibah v City of New York, 124 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 903 [2015]). [read post]
10 Jun 2016, 6:17 am
He pointed to a PowerPoint presentation during his orientation that stated “[u]nused days cannot be carried over into the next year or cashed out. [read post]
17 Aug 2020, 2:44 am
This is the first successful legal challenge to AFR technology and an important decision in relation to the regulation of state surveillance. [read post]
22 May 2012, 3:11 am
by Lee DavisMICHAEL DESHAY PEOPLES, JR. v. [read post]
18 Mar 2010, 2:40 am
The North Face Apparel Corp. v. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 5:47 am
In State v. [read post]
28 Dec 2009, 12:28 pm
The officer cited Appellant for failing to ride along the right edge of the roadway in violation of Vehicle Code section 21202(a). [read post]
