Search for: "Mathews v. Mathews" Results 21 - 40 of 487
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Mar 2013, 5:00 am by Kimberly A. Kralowec
Bob Egelko of the San Francisco Chronicle had this article in yesterday's paper on the Court of Appeal's opinion last week in Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 5:24 pm by Stephen Bilkis
As noted in People v Paul, whether a foundation for the experience and training is set forth or not, it seems that, as a matter of fundamental fairness, defendant should not have to proceed to trial in a narcotics case unless and until a laboratory report has been filed by the People. [read post]
Attorney John Fischer litigated the matter of The Furnace Man Heating & Cooling LLC, et al. v. [read post]
1 Dec 2005, 11:10 am by Legal Talk Network
Craig Williams discuss the arguments before the Supreme Court in Ayotte v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 1:00 am
At first glance this might not seem the most exciting topic, but bear with me as the recently reported Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case of Daleside Nursing Home v Mrs Mathews has thrown up a very interesting point about when costs might be awarded against the losing party before an Employment Tribunal (ET). [read post]
1 Dec 2005, 11:10 am
Craig Williams discuss the arguments before the Supreme Court in Ayotte v. [read post]
12 Dec 2006, 3:26 pm
MUSLADIN, MATHEW No. 05-785. [read post]
12 Dec 2022, 8:20 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
In this post, Mathew Purchase KC of Matrix Chambers previews the forthcoming judgment in the case of R (Day) v Shropshire Council, on appeal from [2020] EWCA Civ 1751. [read post]
26 Dec 2019, 1:59 pm
Hopefully this advice won't have practical significance for the vast majority of readers here. [read post]
12 Dec 2014, 7:31 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
Another tutorial from the Court of Appeals tells us what it takes to win an employment discrimination case, and how hard it is to prove that the employer's reason for firing the plaintiff is a pretext.The case is Mathew v. [read post]