Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
4.84s
148 A.3d 162 · Court of Judicial Discipline of Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 2016
No. 502(d)) with the Judicial Conduct Board (Board) as follows 1 : *164 1. … Commonwealth v. Jeffrey S.
Cited 1 timesPublishedBallard, Barbara v. Western Express, Inc.
2025 TN WC App. 42 · Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board · Sep 5, 2025
TENNESSEE BUREAU OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION WORKERS’ COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD Barbara Ballard Docket No. 2023-01-8131 v. … See Rye v. Women’s Care Ctr. of Memphis, MPLLC, 477 S.W.3d 235, 250 (Tenn. 2015).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · May 14, 1980
When any such election is held, the decision of the school district electorate is binding upon the school board. … Boydston v. State, Okl., 277 P.2d 138 (1954).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Aug 3, 1979
In addition, the chairman and members of said Pardon and Parole Board shall receive their actual and necessary expenses while attending and going to and from meetings of the Board and in performing their official duties, … The Court in Reubin v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedReed, Kimberlee v. CRITICAL NURSE STAFFING, LLC
2025 TN WC 37 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Jun 18, 2025
) Judge Robert V. … The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted.
Cited 0 timesPublishedAmarillo Mut. Benev. Ass'n v. Franklin
50 S.W.2d 264 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Jun 1, 1932
It is further stated in the certificate: “This policy is subject to all the laws of the association or orders of the Board of Directors now in force or that may be hereafter enacted.” … W. 438 ; Independent Order of Puritans v. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.) 229 S. W. 939 ; 45 C. J. pp. 35, 38.
Cited 13 timesPublishedBedwell, Donna v. Richland Country Club
2018 TN WC 61 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · May 3, 2018
Regardless, the Appeals Board addressed a somewhat similar factual scenario in Berdnik v. Fairfield Glade Community Club, 2017 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 32 (May 18, 20 17). … See Lurz v. Int'l Paper Co., 2018 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 13, 1978
Pursuant to the statutory authority granted the Board of Regents of Oklahoma Colleges under the provisions of 70 O.S. 3206 [ 70-3206 ] and 70 O.S. 3510 [ 70-3510 ] (1971), the Board of Regents have adopted its policy manual … Refer generally, 47 O.S. 1 -101 [ 47-1-101 ] (1971), Parker v. State, Okl. Cr., 424 P.2d 997 (1967), U.S. v. Ray, 488 F.2d 15 (1973).
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 17, 1976
county commissioners of the counties in the State of Oklahoma, boards of public and higher education in the State of Oklahoma and all other boards, bureaus, commissions, agencies, trusteeships or authorities in the State … This language appears to be in conflict with a subsequent decision of the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Oldham v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedPearson, Erma v. Guardian Industries Corp.
2018 TN WC 125 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Aug 10, 2018
McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. … In Scarbrough v. Right Way Recycling, LLC, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. Ap. Bd.
Cited 0 timesPublished2024 TN WC 59 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Aug 22, 2024
Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2023); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). … In Ernstes v. Printpack, the Appeals Board instructed that trial courts evaluating the issue of notice should consider the steps below: A.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Feb 28, 1978
We recognize the case of City of Altus, Oklahoma v. Carr, 255 F. Supp. 828 (W.D. Tex. 1966), as dealing with a similar issue, but find it not dispositive of this question. … Inc. v. Cottrell (Miss. 1976), 96 S.Ct. 923 , 424 U.S. 366 , 47 L.Ed.2d 55 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedHarris Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation
15 N.J. Tax 119 · New Jersey Tax Court · Aug 3, 1995
See Borgia v. … In Passaic v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedEncompass Servs., Pllc v. Maser Consulting P.A.
2021 NCBC 40 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 28, 2021
Off-boarding from Encompass 23. … Design & Integration, LLC v. Brown, 2018 NCBC LEXIS 216, at *46 (N.C. Super. Ct. Dec. 10, 2018) (quoting Koch Measurement Devices Inc. v. Armke, 2015 NCBC LEXIS 45, at *15 (N.C. Super. Ct. May 1, 2015)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedNorth Carolina Industrial Commission · Nov 24, 2003
Crawford-Brown's opinions. 16. Dr. Albert placed the central premise of his testimony on mistaken principles of radiation carcinogenesis. Dr. … Young v. Hickory Business Furniture , 538 S.E.2d 912 , 915 , 353 N.C. 227 (2000); Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579 (1993). 3.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Mar 7, 1979
Board of Education, City of Ardmore v. State, Okla. 109 P. 563 (1910). In construing any statute, the primary rule of construction is to ascertain and declare the intention of the Legislature. Midwest City v. … Adams v. Fry, Okla. 230 P.2d 915 , 1951 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedSanders, Sarah v. Regis Corp., dba SmartStyle
2015 TN WC 110 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Sep 1, 2015
.: 2015-06-0017 Employee, ) v. ) State File No.: 2292-2015 REGIS CORP., D/B/A SMARTSTYLE, ) Employer, … After the Workers’ Compensation Judge approves the record and the Court Clerk transmits it to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, the appeal will be docketed and assigned to an Appeals Board Judge for Review
Cited 0 timesPublishedPayne, Ian-Chanel v. Signet Jewelers
2024 TN WC 75 · Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims · Oct 28, 2024
Code Ann. § 50-6-239(c)(6) (2024); McCord v. Advantage Human Resourcing, 2015 TN Wrk. Comp. App. Bd. LEXIS 6, at *7-8, 9 (Mar. 27, 2015). … The Court Clerk will prepare the record for submission to the Appeals Board, and you will receive notice once it has been submitted.
Cited 0 timesPublishedMissouri, K. & T. Ry Co. of Texas v. Graham
209 S.W. 399 · Texas Commission of Appeals · Mar 5, 1919
Smith v. T. & P. Ry. Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 92 , 58 S. W. 151 ; Ry. Co. v. Bigham, 90 Tex. 223 , 38 S. W. 162 . … Co. v. Kizziah, 86 Tex. 89 , 23 S.
Cited 6 timesPublishedOklahoma Attorney General Reports · Jun 4, 1980
Pincelli v. Ohio Bridge Corporation, 198 N.E.2d 483 (1964). … While a board of education is allowed to erect buildings or make improvements on a force account basis, a board may not employ the force account basis to circumvent the mandatory competitive bidding law.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna