Search for: "State v. Dougherty"
Results 81 - 100
of 178
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Apr 2014, 5:15 am
In the case of Bereznicki v. [read post]
25 May 2010, 8:52 pm
Jim Dougherty, one of the finer cardiologists in the State, who adroitly points out numerous other occupational factors that brought abought the heart attck and tag the City with the costs for current benefits, increased PPD, and all manner of other expensive goodies that will be passed on to the Meriden tax payers.The CRB does not address the Citys defense that the claim for the 2001 heart attack was utimely. [read post]
21 May 2012, 1:17 pm
In his recent decision in the case of Glazer v. [read post]
23 Apr 2010, 6:09 am
Dougherty of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP. [read post]
14 Nov 2018, 11:14 am
For instance, the infamous “Hot Coffee” case (formally known as Liebeck v. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 6:00 am
Might as well be a baby driving...In his recent Luzerne County decision in the case of Gugliotti v. [read post]
3 May 2016, 5:34 pm
In a decision handed down in the Federal Middle District Court of Pennsylvania case of Mikiewicz v. [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 6:33 am
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari at 16-17, FTC v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 8:00 am
Cardozo In Palsgraf v. [read post]
3 Sep 2013, 8:00 am
Cardozo In Palsgraf v. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 4:28 pm
”Details of the December 9, 2011, decision in FTC v. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 6:32 am
In the Erie County trial court case of Boyd v. [read post]
14 Dec 2015, 1:28 pm
This came squarely into play last week in Dougherty v. [read post]
17 Apr 2024, 4:53 am
Such statements were absolutely pertinent to the litigation and, as such, are privileged (see id.; Gill v Dougherty, 188 AD3d 1008, 1010 [2d Dept 2020] [“The cause of action alleging defamation failed because the challenged statements were absolutely privileged as a matter of law and cannot be the basis for a defamation action”]). [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 3:52 pm
Dougherty v. [read post]
8 Jul 2010, 7:16 am
Co. v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 1:39 pm
What made the deal tricky is that the purchaser ("a straw man" according to the FTC) was technically the Hospital Authority of Albany-Dougherty County, and government entities are generally exempt from antitrust scrutiny under the state action doctrine. [read post]
6 Jun 2016, 5:06 am
United States v. [read post]
15 Mar 2022, 8:05 am
” “The Camden County judge must now conduct the “fact-sensitive analysis” set forth under the state high court’s 2010 decision in City of Atlantic City v. [read post]
31 Jan 2013, 6:15 am
Co. v. [read post]
