Search for: "State v. State"
Results 9441 - 9460
of 258,423
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Oct 2023, 6:36 am
To state a cause of action for legal malpractice, a party must allege that “(1) the attorneywas negligent; (2) the attorney’s negligence was a proximate cause of [the party’s] losses; and (3) [the party] suffered actual damages” (RTW Retailwinds, Inc. v Colucci & Umans, 231 AD3d 509, 510 [1st Dept 2023], citing Excelsior Capitol LLC v K & L Gates LLP, 138 AD3d 492 [1st Dept 2016]). [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 6:28 am
STATE OF MARYLAND appeared first on Maryland Daily Record. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 6:23 am
Read the opinion The post QUANEL LOVE BROWN v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 6:20 am
Read the opinion The post DERRICK ADAMS v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 6:19 am
This ruling revives the plaintiff's state law claim even as it brings her federal equal pay claim to an end.The case is Eisenhauer v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
In ANITA EISENHAUER v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
Employees Leave the Same Old Employer for the Same New Employer In Morgan Canada Corporation v MacDonald, Morgan Canada Corporation (“Morgan”) sought an injunction against two former employees “MacDonald” and “Di Nardo”, MacDonald’s wife “Caroline”, and Reefer Sales and Service (Toronto) Incorporated (“Reefer”), the company for which both MacDonald and Di Nardo had left Morgan. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
In ANITA EISENHAUER v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
Employees Leave the Same Old Employer for the Same New Employer In Morgan Canada Corporation v MacDonald, Morgan Canada Corporation (“Morgan”) sought an injunction against two former employees “MacDonald” and “Di Nardo”, MacDonald’s wife “Caroline”, and Reefer Sales and Service (Toronto) Incorporated (“Reefer”), the company for which both MacDonald and Di Nardo had left Morgan. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 5:11 am
Quirk, Inc. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2023, 3:11 am
An employer or any other person or entity that violates this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor… Before you ask, sure, that would seem to mean that if an employee (and applicant for employment as well as stated in a footnote in Gay Law Students Ass’n v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 10:17 pm
In EEOC v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 9:01 pm
Supreme Court in AMG Capital Management v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 8:26 pm
Here is Judge Chutkan's gag order issued earlier today in United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 3:38 pm
Richard and Mary Eshelman Faculty Scholar; Professor of Law and International Affairs Pennsylvania State University 239 Lewis Katz Building, University Park, PA 16802 1.814.863.3640 (direct) lcb11@psu.edu Abstract: Humans create but do not regulate generative systems of data based programs (so-called “artificial” intelligence (“A.I.) and generative predictive analytics and its models. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 2:25 pm
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Colorado handed down the first state supreme court case on the law of reverse keyword searches for Google terms: People v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 12:54 pm
Quiroz v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 12:05 pm
In United States v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 11:58 am
Union of India, which decriminalised same sex relationships, and K.S Puttuswamy v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 11:26 am
In Gay Law Students Ass'n v. [read post]