Search for: "State v. Bridges" Results 121 - 140 of 2,087
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Oct 2010, 3:28 am
Excessive absenteeism basis for terminationCicero v Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Auth., 264 AD2d 334The Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority [TBTA] terminated Rocco Cicero, a toll collector, after finding him guilty of charges alleging toll shortages, four unauthorized absences and excessive absenteeism. [read post]
31 Jan 2020, 6:05 am by John-Paul Boyd, QC
The recent decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in A.B. v C.D. v E.F. offers a couple of troubling conclusions with respect to the rights of children and whether determining the presence of family violence requires proof of intent not prescribed by statute. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 10:19 am by Blog Editorial
First there is Houldsworth v Bridge Trustees Limited  and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on Monday 20 and Tuesday 21 June 2011.  [read post]
16 Sep 2019, 9:06 am by Matthew Davie
R (on the application of Edward Bridges) v The Chief Constable of South Wales [2019] EWHC 2341 (Admin) Case Note Introduction In Bridges, an application for judicial review, the UK High Court (Lord Justice Haddon-Cave and Mr. [read post]
7 Sep 2018, 10:44 am by luiza
The Third Circuit’s opinion appropriately recognizes that a whistleblower can use non-public information as a bridge between public information and allegations of fraud, without triggering the public disclosure bar. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 5:01 am by James Edward Maule
The issue is if and how that bridge will generate income to repay the debt and to maintain the value of the bridge. [read post]
27 Jun 2016, 1:11 pm
 Easy for us to drive over, and cheaper than more expensive culverts (or actual bridges), but this whacks the salmon. [read post]
13 May 2020, 10:15 am by Benjamin Beaton and Benjamin Glassman
The charges stemmed from their role in the partial closing, and resulting traffic jam, of the George Washington Bridge. [read post]
4 Sep 2020, 3:58 am by CMS
In this case comment, David Bridge and Jessica Foley, both solicitor-advocates within the CMS litigation & arbitration team, comment on the decision handed down by the UK Supreme Court earlier this summer in the matter of Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31, which concerned whether the rule against reflective loss bars creditors of a company from claiming directly against a third party for asset-stripping the company. [read post]
4 Nov 2016, 3:53 pm by Kirk Jenkins
The majority agreed that the plaintiff had not stated a claim under Section 414. [read post]