Search for: "MILLS v. STATE" Results 1161 - 1180 of 2,204
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jan 2014, 7:18 am by Joy Waltemath
The court considered a $70,000 offer of judgment as neither de minimis nor a nuisance value settlement and treated the employee as a prevailing plaintiff, although it did reduce the fee award because of the “special circumstances” — the employer’s honest mistake that $70,000 represented the entire amount of the offer (Dennis v GOCOM Media of Illinois, Inc, January 15, 2014, Mills, R). [read post]
19 Dec 2013, 3:35 am
Standard Terry Mills, Inc., 229 USPQ 955, 964 (TTAB 1986); Int’l Harvester Co. v. [read post]
17 Dec 2013, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
York v Mills, 250 AD2d 122, leave to appeal denied 93 NY2d 803, the Appellate Division noted that “no local legislative body is empowered to enact laws or regulations which supersede State statutes, particularly with regard to the maintenance, support or administration of the educational system. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 3:13 am
This is followed by an instruction that a prominent statement printed in bold letters of at least 3mm in height stating “USE UNDER MEDICAL SUPERVISION” shall also appear on the label. [read post]
6 Dec 2013, 2:39 pm by National Indian Law Library
Patrick (gaming compacts, tribal intervention in lawsuit)* State Courts Bulletin http://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/currentstate.htmCases featured: Pawnee Well Users, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2013, 6:13 am by Amy Howe
Bay Mills Indian Community and BG Group v. [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 7:45 pm by Steven D. Schwinn
Bay Mills Indian Community, the case asking whether a Native American Indian tribe enjoys tribal sovereign immunity against a state's suit against it for operating an illegal casino outside of... [read post]
2 Dec 2013, 1:49 pm by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Justice Ginsburg further delayed the State (page 5 line 5 through page 8 line 18) by wanting to know why the State did not choose to invoke the dispute resolution mechanism in the 1993 gaming compact with Bay Mills, especially as Justice Kagan later noted the Court had previously held in C&L Enterprises that an arbitration provision can effectuate a waiver of tribal immunity. [read post]