Search for: "Mark Case"
Results 1761 - 1780
of 70,933
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2019, 4:33 am
However, the humrous aspect in this case is the story itself more than the use of the Pringles mark. [read post]
26 Feb 2020, 2:56 am
Mark Joseph Stern for Slate recaps the oral arguments in the Supreme Court yesterday in United States v. [read post]
1 Nov 2017, 3:30 am
Earlier this year, another plaintiff alleging failure to accommodate religious beliefs relating to the mark of the beast not only got past an employer’s attempts to dismiss the case, he ultimately prevailed, scoring a jury award of $586,860.74. [read post]
2 May 2017, 8:31 pm
Rutherford (Utah, April 27, 2017) (reversing summary judgment for Rutherford under Utah Code ss. 31A-22-305.3, which appears to permit double recovery: as a secondary insurer, Truck Insurance Exchange must fully compensate its insured within its policy limits, but only for damages in excess of workers‘ compensation)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res… [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 8:50 pm
The district court, however, concluded the university was entitled to sovereign immunity)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 10:58 pm
., September 25, 2015) (affirming summary judgement in favor of Berry on Thomas’s retaliation claims)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
8 Jan 2017, 9:29 pm
., December 16, 2016) (affirming summary judgment against plaintiffs because the trust was neither arbitrary nor capricious in withholding benefits for failure to complete necessary IRS levy forms)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
19 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
The Historical Society of the New York Courts has announced an event, Celebrating the Enslaved Heroine of the Lemmon Slave Case: A High-water Mark for the New York Courts. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 6:11 pm
August 12, 2016) (affirming summary judgement in favor of Sky Chefs because Vinez was unable to demonstrate discriminatory animus)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 8:56 pm
., January 6, 2016) (affirming the denial of applicaation for a period of disability, insurance benefits, and supplemental income)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
1 Nov 2016, 8:24 pm
., October 17, 2016) (affirming district court judgment ordering arbitration, as the arbitration provision in the collective bargaining agreement was not susceptible to an interpretation excluding the grievances at issue)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
7 Mar 2017, 12:24 pm
., February 21, 2017) (reversing denial of disability benefits because the administrative law judge erred by failing to give appropriate weight to Lewis's treating physician)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
5 Oct 2015, 10:07 pm
., August 11, 2015) (affirming dismissal of Martin’s complaint for failure to comply with the district court’s order that she attach a right-to-sue letter to her complaint)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
11 Dec 2015, 8:15 pm
., December 10, 2015) (affirming denial of disability insurance benefits)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
15 Apr 2017, 6:39 pm
., April 6, 2017) (declining to disturb a labor commission denial of permanenttotal disability benefits because the decision was supported by substantial evidence)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 9:23 pm
., July 20, 2016) (affirming denial ofreview of ALJ determination that Ray was not impaired, as Ray failed to showany basis for reversal)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
17 Oct 2015, 9:19 pm
., September 14, 2015) (affirming denial of Smith’s application for disability benefits and supplemental security income)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
4 Jul 2016, 6:39 pm
(U.S. employer), because of foreign employer Mahalaxmi's failure to establish that Mahalaxmi and Karats are "affiliates")*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 1:09 pm
., April 4, 2016) (reversing judgment in favor of Commissioner because the ALJ failed to properly evaluate consulting psychologist's opinion)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
14 Apr 2016, 10:28 pm
., April 13, 2016) (affirming dismissal of plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty)*Cases marked with an asterisk are cases the 10th Circuit does not consider binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. [read post]
