Search for: "Humphreys v. Humphreys" Results 261 - 280 of 734
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Apr 2018, 9:30 pm by Justin S. Daniel
Considering the director’s insulation from removal by the President, Judge Pillard looked to Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
2 Oct 2015, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Case law has long held that an employee may not be found guilty of acts of alleged misconduct or incompetence that have not been charged [see, for example, Shuster v Humphrey, 156 NY 231].The decision is posted on the Internet at: Discipline Book, - A 458 page guide to disciplinary actions involving public officers and employees. [read post]
21 Dec 2010, 6:44 am by Gerard Magliocca
 To take a simple example, Brown v. [read post]
30 Apr 2007, 3:09 am
Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Humphrey v. [read post]
28 Jun 2018, 2:42 am by Adrian Crespo
In doing so, the Court applied the framework set out in the influential Huawei v ZTE decision of the European Court of Justice, despite the patent in suit not being a standard essential patent. [read post]
31 Jan 2019, 8:14 am by Brianne Gorod
Second, in a 1935 Supreme Court case called Humphrey’s Executor v. [read post]
7 Jan 2014, 7:46 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Sullivan, 658 F.2d 93, 96 n.4 (3d Cir. 1983) (en banc); Humphreys v. [read post]
22 Aug 2011, 3:10 am
Further, case law has long held that an employee may not be found guilty of acts of misconduct or incompetence that have not been charged [Shuster v Humphrey, 156 NY 231]. [read post]
28 May 2019, 4:07 am by Blair Albom
In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying ACT’s request for a permanent injunction because ACT failed to establish that it would sustain irreparable harm (ACT 898 Products, Inc. v. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 3:32 am by Jody Coultas
The Eleventh Circuit agreed with that conclusion based on the plain language of the licensing agreement and affirmed the lower court’s decision (Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. [read post]
Accordingly, the appellate court vacated the preliminary injunction to the extent that it enjoined the sale of products that the mark owner chose not to buy back, and it remanded the case for reexamination of which product lines were covered by the injunction (Really Good Stuff, LLC v. [read post]
An award of over $212,000 in nontaxable costs for expert witness expenses was, however, vacated, because there was no statutory basis for awarding those costs (San Diego Comic Convention v. [read post]
8 Aug 2019, 4:17 am by Robert Margolis
The court also affirmed a district judge’s order sanctioning L&L for failing to disclose its third-party license agreement in discovery (Beach Mart, Inc. v. [read post]