Search for: "Johnson v. Campbell" Results 1 - 20 of 184
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2012, 7:22 am by Eleanor Winslet
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has held in Johnson Controls v Campbell and Anor that there was no service provision change under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (“TUPE”) where a centralised taxi booking service was brought back in-house by the client. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 10:34 am by Meg Martin
Summary of Decision issued April 20, 2010Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.Case Name: Johnson v. [read post]
4 Jul 2017, 4:30 pm by INFORRM
  The reference to Mr Johnson reflected the reality of the situation, and would not increase the pressure that Mr Johnson would already be under as a result of the scrutiny of the litigation. [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 12:59 am
Campbell, Flaxen Conway, Francisco Andrade & David Johnson, Gold Rush or Pandora’s Box? [read post]
18 May 2009, 3:52 pm
The Court of Appeal opinion doesn't discuss that aspect of Campbell, but it does indicate that the defendant relied on Gober v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 7:57 am by WSLL
Affirmed.Case Name: BILLIE COLLEEN JOHNSON v. [read post]
26 Feb 2009, 10:05 am
This factor as well doesn't seem at all amenable to the one-size-fits-all approach inherent in class actions.Thus Campbell alone was enough to kill quite a few punitive damages class actions: In re Simon II Litigation, 407 F.3d 125, 139 (2d Cir. 2005) (Campbell requires decertification of punitive damages class); Johnson v. [read post]
Campbell, which would have imposed a fixed 1:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages for class action suits. [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 6:53 am
Summary of Decision issued August 21, 2009Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme CourtCase Name: Johnson v. [read post]
1 Jun 2023, 2:47 pm by Shea Denning
Waring, 364 N.C. 443 (2010), and requires only that the defendant produce evidence sufficient to permit the trial court to draw an inference that discrimination has occurred, see Johnson v. [read post]