Search for: "Caldwell v. State" Results 221 - 240 of 268
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Dec 2013, 7:19 am by Joy Waltemath
The employee was also granted leave to amend her Title VII, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, and defamation claims; however, her due process and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims were dismissed with prejudice (McSparran v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, December 17, 2013, Caldwell, W). [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 7:20 am by Joy Waltemath
” Accordingly, the court granted the employer’s motion for a preliminary injunction (Rodriguez v National Freight, Inc, March 13, 2014, Caldwell, W). [read post]
28 Oct 2012, 5:30 am by Don Cruse
ANN CALDWELL RUPE, AS TRUSTEE FOR THE DALLAS GORDON RUPE, III 1995 FAMILY TRUST, No. 11-0447. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 7:43 am by PRATER, DUNCAN & CRAIG 770-253-7778
Katz, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles 6 $257,679,500 Consumer Protection State of Louisiana v. [read post]
14 Nov 2019, 8:09 am by John Elwood
(relisted after the September 24, 2018, June 27, 2019, October 18, 2019, November 1, 2019, and November 8, 2019, conferences) Caldwell v. [read post]
18 Apr 2011, 12:48 pm by Sheppard Mullin
But the Court took special care to emphasize that use of the clause was justified “even if the agency had prior knowledge that it might not be successful in deploying the contracted for software,” citing Caldwell v. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 11:06 am
  And the NJ AG plots a counter-attack on a billing record warrant requirement in the Garden State. [read post]
29 Oct 2014, 1:23 pm by Stewart Baker
  And the NJ AG plots a counter-attack on a billing record warrant requirement in the Garden State. [read post]
7 Jan 2010, 10:36 am by Beck, et al.
(Aside for non-lawyers: “diverse” = plaintiff and defendants are citizens of different states; “non-diverse” = citizens of same state on both sides of the “v. [read post]
3 Mar 2008, 12:13 pm
Caldwell, No. 06-5640 In a prosecution for drug- and firearm-related offenses, denial of defendant's motions to suppress evidence uncovered during a search of his hotel room, as well as for a mistrial and acquittal, are affirmed over claims that: 1) the search of his hotel room violated his Fourth Amendment rights; 2) several statements made by the government in front of the jury denied him a fair trial; and 3) the evidence did not support the verdict. [read post]