Search for: "Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Grounds"
Results 81 - 100
of 320
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Oct 2023, 2:28 pm
Aftermath and Liberty Mutual do not have a contract that directly governs their relationship. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 1:25 am
Co. v. [read post]
21 Aug 2015, 6:51 am
Vincent's Hosp. of Richmond v Government Empls. [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
At the same time, courts recognize that every disciplinary situation is different and are pre-disposed to accord “much deference” to the employer’s determination regarding the penalty to be imposed [Ahsaf v Nyquist, 37 NY2d 182], especially with respect to quasi-military organizations such as a police department or a similar law enforcement agency [Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32].In Gradel v Sullivan Co. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 11:58 am
Joe Ray Bonding Co. v. [read post]
14 Jul 2017, 9:09 am
Co. v. [read post]
22 Apr 2014, 5:20 am
DOL refused to take further action on the ground that the government had already made all payments to the prime contractor and had no further funds to withhold. [read post]
24 Sep 2013, 7:05 pm
Sun Life and Health Insurance Company v. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 9:46 am
Godfrey v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 11:11 pm
Co. v. [read post]
27 Feb 2014, 9:01 pm
Some liberal commentators argue that an employer objecting on religious grounds to insurance coverage requirements under the Affordable Care Act may simply decline to continue to offer a health insurance plan to its employees. [read post]
10 Nov 2010, 3:38 am
Both cases involved claims regarding the arbitrability of an increase in employees’ health insurance co-payments. [read post]
1 Oct 2011, 4:38 am
Appellant subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his motion on the grounds that appellant lacked standing. [read post]
23 Aug 2007, 1:09 am
Co. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2017, 11:33 am
Raymours Furniture Co., 225 N.J. 343, 367 (2016). [read post]
28 Mar 2008, 2:44 pm
Sommer is the lead attorney on the case, as co-counsel with attorneys Jeffrey S. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am
[FN3] The court then turned to plaintiff's argument that "the special duty requirement applies only in cases in which the allegedly negligent government conduct is the failure to protect from or respond adequately to a separately imposed injury, but does not apply where the negligent conduct alleged involves the municipal government's own infliction of injury" (id. at 282). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am
[FN3] The court then turned to plaintiff's argument that "the special duty requirement applies only in cases in which the allegedly negligent government conduct is the failure to protect from or respond adequately to a separately imposed injury, but does not apply where the negligent conduct alleged involves the municipal government's own infliction of injury" (id. at 282). [read post]
13 Nov 2017, 2:37 pm
Burwell v. [read post]
15 Apr 2020, 3:16 pm
See Marchand v. [read post]
