Search for: "Givens v. Givens"
Results 1561 - 1580
of 76,032
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
The Appellate Division opined that "the [Board} is the administrative agency responsible for making the final determination" and the court's role "is to examine whether the [Board's] determination was supported by substantial evidence".Citing Matter of Morgan v Warren County, 191 AD3d 1129, the Appellate Division explained that there must be sufficient findings of facts in the first instance and the Appellate Division could not supply the necessary… [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 5:32 am
Furthermore, once having found that the employee had absconded, the commissioner had failed to consider whether dismissal was the appropriate sanction given the circumstances. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
In the case of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 4:00 am
Holder and Rucho v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 3:52 am
Instead of deciding that issue, the court chose to stay the lawsuit in favor of an opposition pending between the parties (Opposition No.91264548). 1661, Inc. d/b/a GOAT v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 1:52 am
Furthermore, once having found that the employee had absconded, the commissioner had failed to consider whether dismissal was the appropriate sanction given the circumstances. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 1:19 am
The decision of Joanna Smith J. in Frain & McKinnon v Reeves & Curnock [2023] EWHC 73 (Ch) (at 19), was cited with approval, from which the following relevant principles could be distilled: a. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 11:57 pm
In this update, we summarise the key takeaways from these two decisions in MoneySmart Singapore Pte Ltd v Artem Musienko [2024] SGHC 94 (MoneySmart) and Shopee Singapore Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Yong [2024] SGHC 29 (Shopee)[1], which highlight the often-unexpected challenges with enforcing restrictive covenants and the importance of carefully drafted restrictive covenants in Singapore. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 2:01 pm
That's entirely equitable as well, I think, given the complexity of the underlying issues. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 7:11 am
Robinson v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 7:02 am
The jury’s findings provide a look at what fact-finders might find in similar crypto enforcement actions (SEC v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 6:05 am
The other two cases – Carême v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 5:01 am
" The platforms challenged the law on First Amendment grounds in NetChoice v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Fund Corp. v Madrid [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 4:00 am
As SCOTUS explained in Sec'y of State of Md. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 9:01 pm
”[15] The court found that Third Circuit precedents, Hays and Co v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 2:56 pm
Proc. 97-35, and cases like RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 2:41 pm
People v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 1:40 pm
Given the injunction, and in line with Roe, Arizona’s abortion policy evolved. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 9:24 am
Given a continuous transaction, the temporal order is “immaterial. [read post]