Search for: "Moore v. Proper" Results 121 - 140 of 592
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
25 May 2018, 6:41 am by John Elwood
The power authority argues that Vitol will lose either way, either on the merits (as the 1st Circuit already held after assuming jurisdiction was proper), or because the 1st Circuit holds that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Vitol companies’ challenge to the remand order. [read post]
6 Feb 2018, 7:16 am by Marcia Shein
As to the harm prong of Strickland, the Court finds a reasonable probability that a jury would have accepted a proper presentation of mental health defense. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 4:00 am by Ken Chasse
Such uncertainty as to the proper interpretation would in itself undermine and prevent “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” being achieved (the burden of proof required for criminal convictions). [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 9:10 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
      [1] Stolze v Addario [2] Evans v Teamsters [3] This seemed to be the implicit theory in the decision of Moore J. in Turner v Uniglobe in rejecting the employer’s submission to this argument of recall. [4] A payroll over $2.5 million requires severance pay of one week per year to a cap of 26 weeks. [read post]
18 Jan 2018, 9:10 am by Written on behalf of Peter McSherry
      [1] Stolze v Addario [2] Evans v Teamsters [3] This seemed to be the implicit theory in the decision of Moore J. in Turner v Uniglobe in rejecting the employer’s submission to this argument of recall. [4] A payroll over $2.5 million requires severance pay of one week per year to a cap of 26 weeks. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 4:00 am by Amy Salyzyn
Moving to the 1980s: it took empowering the courts with the Charter before bar entrance requirements banning non-citizens and bans on inter-provincial law firms were removed (Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia [1989] 1 SCR 143 and Black v Law Society of Alberta [1989] 1 SCR 591, respectively). [read post]
29 Nov 2017, 12:00 pm by Brett M. Kavanaugh
Ct. 2076, 2091 (2015); Dames & Moore v. [read post]