Search for: "Wilcox v State"
Results 81 - 100
of 189
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2014, 2:09 pm
, Titanium Metals Corp. v. [read post]
29 Nov 2013, 5:14 am
U.S. v. [read post]
19 Nov 2013, 7:29 am
Accordingly, the court granted summary judgment on the employee’s gender-based discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law (Wilcox v Cornell University, November 14, 2013, Baer, H, Jr). [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 8:53 am
Second Lawsuit: Young v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 4:39 am
Wilcox, 2008–Ohio–4249 (Ohio Court of Appeals 2008) (quoting State v. [read post]
8 Nov 2013, 6:39 am
On the facts of Wilcox v Birmingham CAB Services Ltd, the EAT held that the employer could not reasonably have been expected to know that Ms Wilcox was disabled until it received a consultant's report (which was something which had been jointly commissioned at the direction of the Employment Tribunal following a claim having been commenced). [read post]
7 Nov 2013, 10:22 am
Eckert on a previous case and stated that Mr. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 9:36 am
At issue in United States v. [read post]
15 Jun 2013, 3:21 pm
See Cooley v. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 7:40 am
United States v. [read post]
4 Jan 2013, 3:27 pm
All the previous appearances (except that discussed yesterday) had been during the Wilcox Administration. [read post]
13 Sep 2012, 12:54 am
Rosa Wilkinson Before making her way up to the 11th floor, Wilkinson earlier attended a meeting with the new IP Minister - Lord Marland - who replaces Baroness Wilcox following the recent ministerial reshuffle (see IPKat post here). [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 4:38 pm
Rosa Wilkinson Prior to making her way up to the 11th floor, Wilkinson earlier attended a meeting with the new IP Minister - Lord Marland - who replaces Baroness Wilcox following the recent ministerial reshuffle (see IPKat post here). [read post]
7 Sep 2012, 1:46 am
In granting the motion, the court determined, inter alia, that defendants established as a matter of law that plaintiff is unable to prove that defendants' [*2]negligence is a proximate cause of plaintiff's damages (see Robbins v Harris Beach & Wilcox, 291 AD2d 797, 798). [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 4:34 am
The case is State v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 4:59 am
State v. [read post]
31 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
Chartrand v. [read post]
7 Jun 2012, 9:26 am
Corp. v. [read post]
