Search for: "Clark v. Burden"
Results 161 - 180
of 684
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Feb 2016, 9:00 am
These “mixed-motive” terminations were recently addressed by the California Supreme Court in Harris v. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 9:47 am
Shaw v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 10:05 am
Shaw v. [read post]
5 Nov 2009, 8:42 am
DONET V. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 7:09 am
V. [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
This helped plaintiffs a lot, since it effectively eliminated their burden of proving causation.When the Restatement (Third) of Torts, Products Liability §2 (1998) superseded §402A, however, no such presumption was recognized at all in any context. [read post]
6 Dec 2007, 12:21 am
With the continuing drama of the Scruggs scandal unfolding daily, sometimes hourly, I almost forgot to blog about the Katrina case that I have written about perhaps more than any other -- Broussard v. [read post]
2 Dec 2009, 6:42 am
Clark v. [read post]
1 Sep 2012, 9:22 am
” Morgan v. [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 1:04 pm
Leasing, LLC v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 10:24 am
” Under United States v. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 4:11 pm
"Sonny" Chastain and Linda Perez Clark The Louisiana Supreme Court in Cheramie Services, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Sep 2007, 11:59 am
Clark v. [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Citing Clark v McGee, 49 NY2d 613, the Appellate Division said that Defendants' statements to which Plaintiff objected "were absolutely privileged" noting that if an absolute privilege defense prevails it affords complete immunity from liability for alleged defamation to "an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government ... with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within… [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Citing Clark v McGee, 49 NY2d 613, the Appellate Division said that Defendants' statements to which Plaintiff objected "were absolutely privileged" noting that if an absolute privilege defense prevails it affords complete immunity from liability for alleged defamation to "an official [who] is a principal executive of State or local government ... with respect to statements made during the discharge of those responsibilities about matters which come within… [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 6:17 pm
” Larbig v. [read post]
3 May 2010, 2:06 pm
KERRIDGE V. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am
See Barnett v. [read post]
Case Comment: Sadovska & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Scotland) [2017] UKSC 54
31 Jul 2017, 3:30 am
Without a doubt, the appellants must surely be equally delighted with the outcome in their case because Lady Hale and Lords Neuberger, Kerr, Clarke and Reed unanimously held that the burden of proving a “marriage of convenience” falls on the Home Office. [read post]
15 Jul 2013, 5:46 am
Clark, 90 S.W.3d 53, 60 (Ky. 2002). [read post]
