Search for: "STATE v. GOMEZ" Results 181 - 200 of 605
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Sep 2016, 2:04 pm by Jonathan H. Adler
Gomez, for instance, the court decided 6-3 that an unaccepted settlement offer of the maximum statutory penalty does not moot a plaintiff’s. [read post]
7 Sep 2016, 11:06 am by Allyson Ho and Scott Schutte
Gomez limits the effectiveness of Rule 68 offers to dismantle classes, but confirms the Court’s application of general mootness doctrines to class actions.) [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 10:30 am by Jay
  The court held in Rodriguez that an award for the loss of future wages should consider what an undocumented person would earn in his or her country of origin and not in the United States. [read post]
18 Aug 2016, 7:39 am by Jay
We published an article a few months ago that highlighted the efforts of California personal injury lawyers Max Halpern and John Michael Montevideo from Gomez Trial Attorneys. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 2:27 pm
Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court decided Campbell-Ewald Co. v. [read post]
12 Jul 2016, 7:52 am by Joy Waltemath
On the merits, the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the plan allowed the employer to deny severance benefits on the ground that the employee failed to return company property (he deleted computer files) upon termination (Gomez v. [read post]
5 Jul 2016, 3:30 am by Shu-Yi Oei
However, in March, the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico ruled in Wal-Mart Puerto Rico v. [read post]
17 Jun 2016, 5:45 am by Joel R. Brandes
  In Berezowsky v Rendon Ojeda, 2016 WL 3254054 (5th Cir.2016) Michelle Gomez Berezowsky filed a Hague Convention petition arguing that Rendon wrongfully removed PARB from his habitual residence (purportedly Mexico). [read post]
3 Jun 2016, 6:30 am by David Markus
Those are the allegations in this motion to dismiss filed by Howard Srebnick and Rossana Arteaga-Gomez in U.S. v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 12:11 pm by Joel R. Brandes
In Gomez v Fuenmayor 2016 WL 454037(11th Cir, 2016) the Eleventh Circuit held that sufficiently serious threats and violence directed against a parent can nonetheless pose a grave risk of harm to a child as well. [read post]