Search for: "Wilson & Co. v. Smith" Results 101 - 120 of 166
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Jan 2024, 2:13 am by Robin E. Kobayashi
The second part of this year yielded several cases addressing instances of workplace violence, including one case involving a third-party attack and another an assault by a co-worker. [read post]
25 Apr 2015, 11:03 am by Schachtman
The first edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence [Manual] was published in 1994, a year after the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Daubert. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 8:10 am by Rebecca Tushnet
  CO: Regan Smith, general counselBrad GreenbergKevin AmerKimberly IsbellMaria StrongSESSION 1: Domestic Developments           Erich C. [read post]
3 Nov 2017, 9:24 am by Andrew Hamm
On May 13, 1952, Jackson and his colleagues heard oral argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. [read post]
9 Oct 2016, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
In a Guardian Comment piece Joan Smith argued that the Mahmood conviction demonstrated the urgent need for Leveson Part 2. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 8:13 am by Ronald Collins
In December 1833, the American Monthly Review commented on a newly published book by Joseph Story. [read post]
23 Dec 2008, 2:57 pm
Wilson, No. 07-2162 Denial of a petition for habeas relief in a first degree murder case is reversed where the use of a non-testifying co-defendant's statement at trial, even as redacted and subject to an instruction that the jury should not use it against defendant, was an unreasonable application of Bruton v. [read post]
22 May 2022, 4:08 pm by INFORRM
On the same day, there was a hearing in COS v PER and another before Collins Rice J. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm by Ad Law Defense
Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. ___ (2014); Buckman Co. v. [read post]
5 Jun 2017, 1:01 pm by Ad Law Defense
Coca-Cola Co., 573 U.S. ___ (2014); Buckman Co. v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
At the same time, courts recognize that every disciplinary situation is different and are pre-disposed to accord “much deference” to the employer’s determination regarding the penalty to be imposed [Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182], especially with respect to quasi-military organizations such as a police department or a similar law enforcement agency [Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32].In Gradel v Sullivan Co. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
At the same time, courts recognize that every disciplinary situation is different and are pre-disposed to accord “much deference” to the employer’s determination regarding the penalty to be imposed [Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182], especially with respect to quasi-military organizations such as a police department or a similar law enforcement agency [Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32].In Gradel v Sullivan Co. [read post]