Search for: "Regal Employment Inc"
Results 1 - 17
of 17
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jan 2015, 5:13 am
American Bullion, Inc. v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 8:32 am
Co., Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jun 2010, 6:12 am
Co., Inc. v Admiral Ins. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 9:46 am
Regal Cinemas, Inc., et al, No. 1:13-cv-03089, am. complaint (D. [read post]
7 Sep 2010, 7:09 pm
Starting with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in PepsiCo., Inc. v. [read post]
20 Mar 2013, 4:20 am
In another case, after granting summary judgment to an employer on a sexual harassment claim, the court sanctioned the employee’s attorney under Rules 11 and 37 for failing to advise her to preserve data on her laptop before she deleted pornography and for making a “legal contention” not “warranted by existing law” (Cajamarca v Regal Entertainment Group, EDNY 2013). [read post]
2 Apr 2013, 2:42 pm
Regal Entertainment Group, 2012 WL 3782437 (E.D.N.Y. [read post]
25 Nov 2013, 7:38 am
The tax charge is not directly related to Davis’ employment as a police officer. [read post]
7 Feb 2013, 8:58 am
The employer also elicited this information at her deposition: Q. [read post]
31 Dec 2009, 4:43 pm
., Inc. v. [read post]
12 Dec 2008, 2:13 pm
Regal Cinemas, Inc. (9th Cir. 2003) 339 F.3d 1126, 1133. [read post]
29 Apr 2010, 11:17 am
American Needle, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jun 2010, 3:46 pm
DECEMBER SITTING: Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 4:23 am
Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, (3d Cir.2004), a Rule 23 case dealing with the “relation back” doctrine). [read post]
12 Feb 2021, 6:06 am
Regal Textile Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc. [read post]
9 Aug 2021, 3:11 pm
UT Law offers JD students two optional concentrations: Advocacy and Dispute Resolution and Business Transactions, each of which provides an opportunity for students to focus their studies as they develop skills and gain knowledge helpful to their pursuit of meaningful employment. [read post]
9 Nov 2010, 1:59 am
FSIS has yet to learn this valuable lesson.The July 10, 2000 edition of Food Chemical News, discussing the SB litigation, stated that: "In a landmark court ruling in May, the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas prohibited USDA from concluding that grinding plants are insanitary or that their products are adulterated based on Salmonella test results (Supreme Beef Processors Inc. v. [read post]
