Search for: "Harrison v. Superior Court" Results 1 - 20 of 89
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jan 2019, 5:34 am
Here's an interesting (albeit unpublished) decision from the Superior Court of Pennsylvania: Harrison v. [read post]
9 Apr 2010, 3:46 am
Payment for unused vacation credit upon separation from employmentBaksh v Town/Village of Harrison, 38 A.D.3d 808Mohamed R. [read post]
16 Feb 2008, 7:56 pm
The Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. [read post]
4 Nov 2014, 3:55 am by David DePaolo
There are some cases that scream retaliation - and when a rejected suitor doesn't feel "justice" he will lash out against the next closest offender: the attorney that took the case in the first place.Hamp v. [read post]
31 Oct 2008, 9:31 pm
Court" and then published this analysis: REST BREAK AND MEAL PERIOD CLAIMS AFTER MURPHY V. [read post]
28 May 2015, 6:00 am by Yosie Saint-Cyr
An Ontario court has compelled an employer to produce an email message between HR staff and counsel in the wrongful dismissal case of Jacobson v Atlas Copco Canada Inc. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 10:13 am
Copying a lawyer on an e-mail you’re sending to someone else does not automatically make that communication privileged, an Ontario Superior Court judge has found.Justice Gregory Ellies said in a recent ruling the intention of the communication matters, and that intention must be to seek or receive legal advice. [read post]
10 Apr 2013, 11:44 am by Robert Odell
After the lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Bingham moved to compel the case to binding arbitration, citing the arbitration clause in Harris’ employment contract. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 8:33 am
Newlin Fell and James Tyndale Mitchell, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge Alexander Simpson, Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge J. [read post]
3 Nov 2015, 2:53 am by Michelle Buhalo
Newlin Fell and James Tyndale Mitchell, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Judge Alexander Simpson, Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge J. [read post]
26 Jun 2023, 4:30 am by Michael C. Dorf
Superior Court, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a non-resident defendant may be subject to personal jurisdiction in a state in virtue of having been served with process while physically present within the state, even apart from any other contacts the defendant has or doesn't have with the forum state. [read post]