Search for: "Colton v. Colton" Results 41 - 60 of 116
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Jul 2015, 2:00 pm
The Defendants in this litigation are AmazonLocal LLC of Seattle, Washington, Michael Albo, Kristin Baker, Dan Beary, Colton Bozigian, Jake Connerton, Adam DiVincenzo, Brandon Goodwyn, Kristen Haught, Justin Hillman, Amit Jain, Joshua Keezer, Olivia Landergan, Daniel Malamud, Raissa Masket, Samantha McDonald, Jason Patrao, Sharon Porter, Darren Reinstein, Billy Restrepo, Michael Shmunis, and Jacquelyn Vail. [read post]
7 Dec 2023, 1:17 am by CMS
The Court of Appeal considered the same case law as the lower courts, with the addition of SC, CB and 8 children v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others [2021] UKSC 26. [read post]
15 May 2020, 7:59 am by Don Cruse
TOMMY YOWELL, GAIL YOWELL, HARRY GRAFF, EL TERICO, LLC AND CASUARINA INVESTMENTS, LLC (D/B/A LAR RESOURCES, LLC) v. [read post]
16 Sep 2015, 1:24 pm by Andy
The owner of the company, Mr Craig Colton takes photographs of work he has completed and posts them on his company's website. [read post]
29 Mar 2020, 10:43 am by John Hochfelder
Both the trial judge and the appellate court agreed (as to the future pain and suffering award) and in Maurer v. [read post]
1 Mar 2012, 4:24 am
Significantly, the court commented that although the District did not conduct a hearing before terminating Gigliotti’s employment, such a hearing was not "required by statute or law," citing Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322 Typically courts have viewed employees who lack required licenses as being “unqualified,” in contrast to being “incompetent,” to perform the duties of the position. [read post]
14 Apr 2011, 4:51 am
Significantly, the court commented that although the District did not conduct a hearing before terminating Gigliotti’s employment, such a hearing was not "required by statute or law," citing Colton v Berman, 21 NY2d 322 Assuming that the District had provided Gigliotti with an opportunity to show that he or she satisfied the District’s requirement regarding domicile, the problem here was that the court disagreed with the District’s conclusion that… [read post]