Search for: "Johnson v. Campbell"
Results 1 - 20
of 173
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Apr 2012, 7:22 am
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
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
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]
9 Jun 2010, 11:24 am
Tom Campbell, who filed Monday. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 7:00 am
(See Johnson v. [read post]
22 Aug 2012, 7:57 am
Affirmed.Case Name: BILLIE COLLEEN JOHNSON v. [read post]
18 Apr 2015, 9:48 am
Panel V. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 6:33 pm
Johnson & Son, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Mar 2011, 4:30 am
" At that time, we were discussing Campbell v. [read post]
11 Dec 2011, 5:02 am
Johnson, 2011 U.S. [read post]
18 Apr 2016, 3:35 pm
Supreme Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. 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]
1 Jun 2021, 12:09 pm
Campbell, which would have imposed a fixed 1:1 ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages for class action suits. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 7:34 am
Tenn.) in Johnson v. [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
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]
23 Oct 2018, 11:14 am
Campbell. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 9:41 am
While the trial court tossed that claim on its rear-end for failure to cite Section 1983, the Second Circuit (Calabresi, Hall and Rakoff [D.J.]) reinstates the claim under recent Supreme Court authority, Johnson v. [read post]
29 Dec 2018, 8:55 am
The law is not as clear in Maine, as the state’s highest court has not adopted the Luhrmann standard, and in fact a 2013 Maine Superior Court ruling rejected the standard in Campbell v. [read post]
10 Oct 2015, 4:15 pm
The first case up is Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
