Search for: "Goode v. State" Results 1761 - 1780 of 44,307
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Sep 2015, 5:39 pm
”  The predominant purpose test asks “whether (the contract’s) predominant factor, (its) thrust, (its) purpose, reasonably stated, is the rendition of service, with goods incidentally involved (e.g., contract with artist for painting) or is a transaction of sale, labor incidentally involved (e.g., installation of a water heater in a bathroom). [read post]
4 Mar 2023, 7:58 am by Eric Goldman
He  brought a state court class action lawsuit against Ripoff Report, alleging violations of CA B&P 17200 and the implied covenant of good faith. [read post]
28 May 2017, 5:23 pm by Richard Hunt
And so a jury verdict for the United States against a landlord is good news. [read post]
27 Dec 2010, 4:05 am
Dissatisfaction with an employer's drug testing procedure is not “good cause” for resigning for the purposes of claiming unemployment benefitsMatter of French v Town of Lyndon, 2010 NY Slip Op 09451, Decided on December 23, 2010, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentKevin M. [read post]
17 Aug 2022, 3:00 am by Chip Merlin
We want to organize efforts and share information to find out why these appraisals are not being paid and to make certain that this new State Farm process is totally in good faith and reflects State Farm’s “Good Neighbor” promise. [read post]
28 Jan 2014, 7:30 am by Amanda Frost
Rogers (addressing the procedural safeguards in the collection of child support) and J.D.B. v. [read post]
26 Jul 2024, 3:10 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
On October 3, 2016, the United States Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari (see Morris v Zimmer, 580 US 873 [2016]). [read post]
11 Oct 2007, 1:20 pm
  Here is the abstract: The Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
8 Feb 2021, 4:57 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“Contrary to the Kletzkin defendants’ contention, the complaint adequately states a cause of action to recover damages for violation of Judiciary Law § 487. [read post]