|
|
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:57:06 -0400, bgold@nyx.net (Barry Gold) wrote:
>Me either. Although I will note that in many states TROs requiring
>a certain distance and/or "no contact" are granted automatically. The
>judge may have simply taken a stack
|
|
|
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:56:33 -0400, Stuart Bronstein
<spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
>A temporary restraining order is generally given for a very short
>period of time, with a hearing scheduled quickly to allow the other
>party to contest it. At l
|
|
|
John Smith wrote:
> I was fired (a two week notice) from job in TN during my 90 day probation
> period in Nashville, TN at a large company.
[thinks he should not have been]
Depends on the terms of your probation. You have a long narrative but
|
|
|
In article <31bui3lt49fgmpjp0dt035taikkv2c8ua9@4ax.com>,
"John Smith" <john@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thirdly, one of the tasks he asked was
> just wishful thinking on his part, and something set up on which to fail.
> What are my options? Can I be fi
|
|
|
"John Smith" <john@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:31bui3lt49fgmpjp0dt035taikkv2c8ua9@4ax.com:
> I was fired (a two week notice) from job in TN during my 90 day
> probation period in Nashville, TN at a large company. My boss is
> saying that I did not
|
|
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:48:25 -0500, gary556@hotmail.com wrote:
>You'vr probably seen them, says something similar to
>"Stay back 200 feet, not responsible for broken winshields".
>Not bad advice, but sometimes impossible to manage, i.e.
>when on
|
|
|
I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV (although with the
writer's strike, who knows about the future).
>I was fired (a two week notice) from job in TN during my 90 day probation
>period in Nashville, TN at a large company.
Are you a unio
|
|
|
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 06:48:45 -0500, sethb@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
>>Stephen Ambrose was a prolific plagurists hiding behind academic
>>credentials. While he was criticized by both academe and the
>>media, I am not aware of any on successfully suing
|
|
|
Mon, 05 Nov 2007 09:45:22 -0500 from John A. Weeks III
<john@johnweeks.com>:
> The things that can and cannot do should be very well documented
> in your employee handbook. Very few companies these days take the
> chance of running without such a ha
|
|
|
On Nov 5, 9:44 am, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> In reading this case, Jess v. Herrmann, 26 Cal.3d 131, 161 Cal.Rptr. 87,
> I find that:
[excess deleted]
The court also wrote:
"At the conclusion of the trial, the jury, in its special fin
|
|
|
On Nov 5, 9:44 am, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> In reading this case, Jess v. Herrmann, 26 Cal.3d 131, 161 Cal.Rptr. 87,
> I find that:
> The trial court, however, did not enter separate judgments in favor of each
> party in the amount of th
|
|
|
Paul Cassel <pcasselremove2@comremovecast.net> wrote:
> Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>> So from a due process standpoint they are generally minimally
>> disruptive and are probably ok.
>>
> Given my position, a TRO would ruin my life. I don't think y
|
|
|
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:23:05 -0400, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> "Paul J. Dudley" <pauljdudley@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> We have a situation whereby a female tenant calls from florida
>> to say she is giving up her tenancy. Her son is still her
|
|
|
Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> You're a lawyer; you should know laws don't always make sense<g>.
> It'd be nice if they did but.........
Oh, laws always make sense to somebody. They don't always make common
sense, though.
Stu
|
|
|
The lawyer who drew up my will told me that the specific
guidelines I suggest/desire for the care of
companion animals be attached in a separate document to the
will and it should not be typed. I suspect he would
suggest the same approach for the
|
|
|
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:23:05 -0400, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> "Paul J. Dudley" <pauljdudley@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> We have a situation whereby a female tenant calls from florida
>> to say she is giving up her tenancy. Her son is still her
|
|
|
John Smith <john@hotmail.com> wrote:
[OP was fired with notice from a job in TN during initial probation.
OP's boss gave a "reason" which OP considers to be bull#@($. OP asks
(at some irrelevant length) for advice (including appealing the firing
to H
|
|
|
On Nov 5, 9:44 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> If Mr. A owns property B and leases it to Mr. M and then turns around
> and sells it to Company XYZ, then he's simply selling the property "with
> restrictions on it's use." That'd be no diffe
|
|
|
>> (Mike Jacobs) writes:
>>
>> | In other words, as to the person who failed to act
>> | promptly to record the interest he had acquired, you snooze, you lose.
>On Oct 31, 7:35 am, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
>> Does this apply to prescri
|
|
|
On Nov 5, 9:44 am, henri <he...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> I'm having difficulty figuring out exactly to what extent the parties are harmed
> and the insurance companies enriched [by applying a mandatory setoff where both parties who sue each other are insur
|
|
|
>Mike <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
>> I.e. a lease can say "here are things that thou shalt not do and if
>> thou doest thing herein, the lease is considered broken, null and
>> void"
>> Mike Jacobs wrote:
>Breaching a contract generally doe
|
|
|
[Jonathan Sachs pointed to the 1998 State Street case as standing for
the continuing proposition that algorithms are not patentable.
Inferrable but not noted by Jonathan is that the State Street case
*is* the lead case for a recent expansion of patenta
|
|
|
P wrote:
> >Ie. not only did a real dispute exist at the time of granting the
> >default judgement, but further 'causes' have been added to
> > the original dispute.
> You are again wrong. On multiple points, as usual.
>
Robert Bonom
|
|
