Search for: "Spells v. Spells" Results 1761 - 1780 of 3,197
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 May 2008, 4:30 am
Partnership v Larkin, 167 Md App 599, 619-620, 893 A2d 1219, 1231 [2006], cert denied 393 Md 243, 900 A2d 749 [2006]; Winn v Winn Enters., Ltd. [read post]
26 Sep 2019, 9:43 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
., Editor, First Reference In Thoma v Schaefer Elevator Components Inc., 2019 BCSC 100 (CanLII), the British Columbia Supreme Court re-affirms the need for employers to establish and communicate clear and explicit rules when discretionary bonuses form part of an organization’s compensation scheme. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 11:23 am
The 11th Circuit, in a split decision, in U.S. v. [read post]
22 Nov 2014, 8:47 pm by Kirk Jenkins
During its September term, the Illinois Supreme Court heard oral argument in Bettis v. [read post]
19 May 2008, 2:20 pm
(An amusing aside: Justice Scalia begins the opinion with a dig at Congress's penchant for silly statute titles intended to spell out a neat acronym (like "P.A.T.R.I.O.T. [read post]
20 Mar 2012, 5:25 pm by Eric
* LA Weekly: A gentlemen's hypersensitivity to how his name is spelled + a law degree = recipe for disaster [read post]
22 Dec 2010, 11:47 am by Mark Bennett
An act is ministerial “when the law clearly spells out the duty to be performed … with such certainty that nothing is left to the exercise of discretion or judgment. [read post]