Search for: "BRIDGE v. STATE" Results 1741 - 1760 of 2,604
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Sep 2011, 3:15 am
” Determining probation status when employee's service is interrupted by an absence Johnston v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority, App. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 6:00 am by Will Bland
M/V FURNESS BRIDGE, 558 F.2d 790 (5th Cir. 1977), elaborated and, citing Trade Banner, stated, “The wharfinger’s duty to warn applies only to ‘any hidden hazard or deficiency . . . not reasonable known to the ship owner. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 9:05 am by PaulKostro
Ctr. at Orange, 116 N.J. 7, 15 (1989) (citing 2 State of New Jersey Constitutional Convention of 1947, Committee on the Judiciary Report § 11(J) at 1187 (1947)); accord Oliver v. [read post]
17 Aug 2011, 3:19 pm by David Lat
Berry’s 50-page complaint, filed in New York state court, contains 14 causes of action, including wrongful termination, fraud, and breach of contract. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 3:48 am by Douglas NeJaime
 In the immediate wake of the district court opinion in Perry v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 7:31 am by tracey
Bridge Trustees Ltd v Yates and others (Secretary of State for Work and Pensions intervening) [2011] UKSC 42;  [2011] WLR (D)  267 “Equilibrium of assets and liabilities was not a requirement of the definition of a money purchase pension scheme under section 181 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.” WLR Daily, 27th July 2011 Source: www.iclr.co.uk [read post]
28 Jul 2011, 3:35 am by tracey
Supreme Court Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher & Ors [2011] UKSC 41 (27 July 2011) Belmont Park Investments PTY Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd & Anor [2011] UKSC 38 (27 July 2011) Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40 (27 July 2011) Houldsworth & Anor v Bridge Trustees Ltd & Anor [2011] UKSC 42 (27 July 2011) Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2011] UKSC 39 (27 July 2011) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) The Newspaper… [read post]
27 Jul 2011, 5:45 am by Matrix Legal Information Team
The Supreme Court, by a 4-1 majority, dismissed the Secretary of State’s appeal on two issues, holding that equilibrium of assets and liabilities is not a requirement of the statutory definition of a money purchase scheme (and similarly for money purchase benefits). [read post]