Search for: "Doyle v. State" Results 141 - 160 of 516
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
15 Mar 2017, 2:00 am by Rhonda Shirreff
In Doyle v Zochem, both the trial judge and a unanimous Court of Appeal agreed that the employer’s conduct clearly warranted moral damages. [read post]
1 Mar 2017, 9:30 am by Legal Beagle
  As summarised in an Isle of Man judgment, the scheme resembled a “Ponzi” scheme in that apparent repayments to HC were in fact funded in a circular way by HC itself:  see paragraph 30 of the judgment of His Honour Deemster Corlett, Heather Capital Limited v KPMG Audit LLC, 17 November 2015. [9]        A third party, Nicholas Levene, was a participant in the scheme. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 4:07 am by Edith Roberts
” Briefly: At the National Conference of State Legislatures’ blog, Lisa Soronen discusses District of Columbia v. [read post]
4 Feb 2017, 5:33 am by Jordan Brunner
Federal Republic of Ethiopia that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act gives state-sponsored hackers immunity, while Emma Kohse discussed the history and current state of the ATS suit Salim v. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 9:26 am by Jordan Brunner
Quinta Jurecic posted the Lawfare Podcast: Goldsmith v. [read post]
12 Jan 2017, 12:04 pm by Edith Roberts
He served as Missouri state director for Sen. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 5:24 am by INFORRM
In the case of Reid v Dukic [2016] ACTSC 344, a man who posted a series of Facebook posts defaming the chief executive of a Canberra football organisation has been ordered to pay her damages of $180,000. [read post]
5 Dec 2016, 3:20 am by Peter Mahler
The hard lesson learned by the petitioner in Matter of Norvell v Guchi’s Idea LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 32307(U) [Sup Ct Kings County Nov. 18, 2016], has been taught before, starting most prominently with the First Department’s 2013 decision in Doyle v Icon, LLC and reinforced by that court two years later in Barone v Sowers, holding that minority member claims of oppressive majority conduct including systematic exclusion from the LLC’s… [read post]
27 Sep 2016, 4:20 pm by INFORRM
This is presumably because the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction “is a power which for good reasons must be sparingly used” (Megaleasing (above) 503 (Finlay CJ);Doyle v Garda Commissioner [1999] 1 IR 249, [1998] 1 ILRM 229, [1997] IEHC 147 (27 August 1997); and see Warman v Fournier 2010 ONSC 2126 (CanLII) (3 May 2010)). [read post]
14 Sep 2016, 5:56 am by Edith Roberts
At the Notice and Comment blog, David Feder discusses Esquivel-Quintana v. [read post]