Search for: "Wheeler v. Insurance Company" Results 41 - 60 of 64
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Dec 2011, 8:12 am
Wheeler says one issue still unresolved is that the government may give some consideration to the definition of catastrophic impairment in the course of amending the Insurance Act. [read post]
30 Jun 2009, 10:19 am
JNJ Express is out of Memphis and employs 184 drivers; the company carries at least one million dollars of insurance. [read post]
3 Apr 2009, 3:49 am
Pyett, No. 07-581Enforceability of collectively bargained arbitration clauseo April 1, 2009 decision hereo SCOTUS docket hereo SCOTUSWIKI hereo Noted here: Law.com; Washington Post; Mayer Brown; Business Insurance; FYI: Central Ohio Employment Law Update; Jottings By An Employment Lawyer; Paul Mollica; Ogletree DeakinsArgued - Awaiting DecisionAT&T v. [read post]
9 Jan 2009, 7:00 am
: G-Star v Pepsico (Class 46)   Nigeria Nigeria celebrates 20 years of copyright law (Afro-IP)   Poland Confusion around ARENDA (Class 46) Inspiration or plagiarism? [read post]
9 Sep 2008, 2:25 pm
Wheeler, No. 07-1816 Conviction and sentence for embezzling, stealing or otherwise converting employee contributions to a company's health insurance and 401(k) funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 669 and 664, are affirmed over claims that the district court: 1) erred in defining the mens rea element of the offense under section 669; 2) admitted impermissible prior act evidence in violation of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b); and 3) imposed an enhancement that… [read post]
2 Sep 2008, 7:12 pm
Wheeler (ND Ind., Judge Miller), a 19-page opinion, Judge Cudahy writes:A jury convicted James Wheeler of embezzling, stealing or otherwise converting employee contributions to his company's health insurance and 401(k) funds in violation of 18 U.S.C. [read post]
28 Aug 2008, 2:15 pm
Simpson, No. 07-5840 A sentence and order of restitution imposed for defendant's crime of mail fraud, involving his underreporting of payroll information for his businesses to his workers' compensation insurance carriers, is affirmed where the district court correctly concluded that the "loss" caused by this conduct was the amount of additional premiums that the insurance carriers would have charged had they been given accurate information. [read post]