Search for: "Matter of Froelich"
Results 1 - 20
of 20
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Nov 2013, 6:07 am
[Sun Sentinel] * Law firm merger mania, mid-size Midwest edition: Chi-Town law firm Shefsky & Froelich is the just latest in a very well-known group to be gobbled up by a much larger firm, only to have its name completely disappear. [read post]
20 Jan 2014, 4:00 am
” ...Matters of ecclesiastical abstention are often not clear-cut, and the depositions of the parties (although not cited by the trial court) do indicate a desire to remove the pastor – which implicates an ecclesiastical decision.The majority also refused to apply a fraud or collusion exception, and concluded as well that plaintiffs had failed to follow internal church procedures to deal with their complaints.Judge Froelich dissented in part concluding that the court… [read post]
23 Feb 2009, 2:27 am
Froelich, Comment, Closing the Equitable Loophole: Assessing the Supreme Court's Next Move Regarding the Availability of Equitable Relief for Military Plaintiffs, 35 Seton Hall L.Rev. 699 (2005). [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 11:47 am
That was unimportant, she said, because it was the principle of the decision by Chief Justice John Marshall that mattered. [read post]
16 Mar 2012, 9:18 am
Hughes Hubbard: Critical matters. [read post]
1 Jun 2017, 11:23 am
In Germany, a new provision provides for an 'estoppel defence' so that national proceedings would be dismissed by the German Courts where UPC proceedings are pending (or have already been decided) that cover the same subject matter. [read post]
11 Mar 2019, 4:50 am
Second District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Froelich sat for Justice Stewart, who participated in the appellate decision while on the Eighth District Court of Appeals. [read post]
24 Nov 2021, 3:32 am
The First Amendment precludes the government from distinguishing good thoughts from bad ones, no matter how passionately others do. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 6:14 am
” “In her opinion, Kennedy cited previous examples of recusal matters in the state, namely In re Disqualification of Dezso from 2011, which established that affiants have a burden to prove that their affidavits are timely filed. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 6:49 am
In a split decision authored by Judge Fain, joined by Judge Froelich, the Second District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s summary judgment order, finding that there were genuine issues of material fact concerning whether the French Village malpractice claim was within the scope of Ropchock’s representation of Ratonel. [read post]
9 Apr 2012, 4:09 pm
& A. 1947)[]; Froelich v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 6:56 am
Union, 2004-Ohio-5770 (Termination of employment is a matter that arises out of the employment relationship.) [read post]
25 Feb 2019, 5:42 am
Second District Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Froelich will sit for Justice Stewart, who participated in the appellate decision while on the Eighth District Court of Appeals. [read post]
16 Apr 2018, 6:43 am
Dunson’s claim that monies in his prison account are exempt from garnishment to satisfy the order of costs is a civil matter. [read post]
2 Feb 2016, 8:26 am
In his dissent, Judge Froelich stated that the no proximate cause rule is contrary to traditional notions of proximate cause and should no longer be followed. [read post]
29 Feb 2016, 7:03 am
Ropchok told Ratonel on a number of occasions that he was not representing her on the French Village matter. [read post]
7 Sep 2015, 6:28 am
While it is the position of the appellants that Section 34a is not self-executing, it really doesn’t matter because 34a provides for implementing legislation, and by its own terms R.C. 4111.14 was that implementing legislation. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 6:46 am
Froelich and joined by Judge Mary E. [read post]
11 May 2018, 11:31 am
While the defense agrees that the constitutional issue is not directly before the court, as a matter of statutory construction, the state has asked this court to interpret what R.C. 2947.23 means. [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 7:05 am
In his dissent, Judge Froelich stated that the no-proximate-cause-rule is contrary to traditional notions of proximate cause and should no longer be followed, and the extreme or outrageous standard required by the no-proximate-cause-rule effectively usurps the legislature’s determination under the political subdivision tort liability statute that recklessness is the appropriate level of conduct that would cause an employee of a political subdivision to lose his immunity. [read post]
