Search for: "Babcock and Wilcox Company"
Results 21 - 40
of 46
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Jun 2019, 9:45 am
Babcock and Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112 (1956) which set forth the standard for nonemployee access to an employer’s property. [read post]
8 Nov 2017, 1:09 pm
In addition, I provided to you Interrogatories which admit “other companies” supplied asbestos products, including CE (a company you should know) and Babcock and Wilcox – both companies which admit their insulating cement contained asbestos. [read post]
10 Sep 2017, 3:07 pm
JANE C. [read post]
1 Sep 2017, 6:49 am
IB further asserted that Dillard, shortly after funding the account, began a trading strategy that consisted of buying and selling mining company stocks and oil and mineral futures. [read post]
9 May 2017, 5:00 am
Companies in addition to Apple that filed conflict minerals reports include: Sphere 3D Corp.; Quantum Corporation; Amerityre Corporation; O2 Micro International Limited; Jason Industries, Inc.; Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.; and KEMET Corporation. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 6:56 am
Babcock & Wilcox Enters., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00125 (W.D.N.C. [read post]
31 Mar 2017, 6:56 am
Babcock & Wilcox Enters., et al., No. 3:17-cv-00125 (W.D.N.C. [read post]
13 Feb 2017, 8:22 am
The following companies are well-known for having exposed their employees to high levels of asbestos and have been named as defendants in multiple personal injury cases: Lummus Swan Asbestos and Silica Babcock & Wilcox Company Energy Future Holdings Union Carbide Corporation Halliburton Company According to EWG Action Fund, [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 6:40 am
ACTIVE ASBESTOS TRUST FUNDS Pacor Incorporated $2.5 billion Johns Manville $2.5 billion Western MacArthur $2 billion Nicolet Keasbey & Mattison $2.11 billion Combustion Engineering $1.43 billion Babcock and Wilcox $1.85 billion A.P. [read post]
26 Jun 2016, 7:25 am
The Board's decision in this case predated its newer, less deferential standard of review announced in Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co. 361 N.L.R.B No.132Erosion of the bargaining unitArbitrator James Lundberg issued an award in a dispute between ExxonMobil and Steelworkers Local11-470. [read post]
22 Jul 2015, 12:41 pm
In the case of Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. [read post]
16 Jun 2015, 7:08 am
Applying the Board's traditional standards (i.e. before those were modified in Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company), the ALJ found the Arbitrator's decision "clearly repugnant" to the Act and therefore refused to defer to the Arbitrator's award. [read post]
3 Jun 2015, 8:53 am
-Austin 1999, pet. denied) (when issue of attorney’s fees was submitted to arbitrator, trial court was not permitted to second-guess arbitrator’s decision to award no attorney’s fees); Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 12:15 pm
The General Counsel’s memorandum was issued to provide guidance in light of the NLRB’s recent decision in Babcock & Wilcox Constr. [read post]
30 Dec 2014, 12:46 pm
Now, in Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company, in yet another 3-2 vote divided on party lines, the Board has announced it will no longer follow its long-standing deferral approach. [read post]
4 Oct 2014, 12:09 pm
Since 1663, the Royal Society has sported the motto: “Nullius in verba,” on no one’s authority. [read post]
22 Jul 2014, 7:00 am
Primus’ Losses in “Scorched Earth” Litigation Strategy Will Create Change in Audit Industry – Retailer Responsibility Next It has been almost three long years since dusty Holly, Colorado, became the epicenter of a Listeria monocytogenes human tragedy. [read post]
21 Jul 2014, 10:01 pm
It has been almost three long years since dusty Holly, Colorado, became the epicenter of a Listeria monocytogenes human tragedy. [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 2:09 pm
The Board issued an order in the case in which the issue is presented (Babcock & Wilcox Construction Company, Case 28-CA-022625) setting out the questions for amici to address. [read post]
11 Mar 2013, 7:40 am
McKesson Corporation12-631Issue: (1) Whether the Treaty of Amity between the United States and Iran also provides a cause of action to sue the foreign sovereign in the courts of the company’s “home” country, so that respondent McKesson may sue Iran in the United States and an Iranian company may sue the United States in Iran; and (2) whether a foreign sovereign’s interpretation of its domestic law is entitled to deference, as several other appellate courts… [read post]
