Search for: "Gray v. HAS" Results 1781 - 1800 of 1,985
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Apr 2009, 5:04 am
As per usual, Chief Justice Gray seems to read the equities well. [read post]
8 Apr 2009, 5:06 am
Gamboa objected, and argued that the exclusion of the qualified juror was immune to a harmless error analysis under Gray v. [read post]
8 Apr 2009, 5:02 am
[For God's sake, don't say anything that might be construed as an opinion that error has been preserved! [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 6:21 pm
District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the plaintiffs (Humane Society of the United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 10:04 pm
  Reasons for judgement were released today (Heppner v. [read post]
17 Mar 2009, 6:10 am
Any investment guy worth his salt already has a 92 year old gray-beard expert estate lawyer that he feeds all the referrals to. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 2:13 pm
I am pleased to see that the Old Gray Lady is taking note of the fact that the Supreme Court's supposedly revolutionary Second Amendment ruling in Heller has not had much of a practical impact. [read post]
5 Mar 2009, 6:30 am
This is the third in the four-part series from the brain injury case of Gregory Joseph Gagnon, et al. v. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 9:09 am
Since then, there has been much speculation regarding when, under a rule of reason analysis, RPM is unlawful. [read post]
1 Mar 2009, 4:24 pm
    The Fourth District Court of Appeal decision in Chindarah v. [read post]
6 Feb 2009, 4:15 am
"In contrast, a probationary employee who has completed the minimum period of his or her probationary period may be terminated at any time prior to the end of his or her maximum period of probation without notice and hearing [see Gray v Bronx Developmental Center, 65 NY2d 904].In order to dismiss a probationary employee before he or she has completed his or her minimum period of probation, the courts have held that the employer must serve the individual with… [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 9:37 am by Robert Vonada
(Verizon Pennsylvania) – Commonwealth Court case holding that to reinstate benefits after retirement, the Claimant has the burden to show the Claimant is disabled from all work.But see Gray v W.C.A.B. [read post]
29 Jan 2009, 8:18 am
• The judgment also ignores the views expressed by Lord Hoffman in Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28 as to whether a CFA could be retrospective under the current rules and also the policy issues that were argued in that case. [read post]