Case No Sample Clauses

Case No. CV 75-04111 DDP Case 2:75-cv-04111-DDP Document 318-1 Filed 09/08/22 Page 5 of 48 Page ID #:5717
Case No. 2017-00179, Jan. 18, 2018 Order, Appendix A at 6.
Case No. 054 On November 29, 2006, the same day that Fox and D’Aquila had lunch, Judy Grant, a patient services manager in the nursing resources department, conducted mandatory meetings during work time with 165 eligible voters who serve under her direction. The details of Grant’s conduct were set forth in the decision in Case No. 054 and are summarized as follows: • Employees were summoned to mandatory staff meetings to discuss the union in violation of paragraph 3B of the election principles agreement prohibiting mandatory meetings; • These meetings were held on work time and violated the employer’s no solicitation/no distribution rule; • The meetings were held in contravention of previous arbitration awards ordering the employer to cease and desist from engaging in this conduct; • Employees were unlawfully polled at these meetings about their sentiments about the union in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as well as paragraph 3A of the election principles agreement; • Grant factually misrepresented to employees that union dues would be charged as a percentage of gross pay in violation of paragraph 3A of the election principles agreement; • Grant threatened employees with loss of their $1.75 hourly wage differential if the union won the election in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as well as paragraph 3A of the election principles agreement; • Grant threatened employees with loss of overtime if the union won the election in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as well as paragraph 3A of the election principles agreement; • Grant threatened employees with more onerous working conditions if the union won the election, specifically that employees would no longer be able to request a day off for a doctor’s appointment or personal business without a union representative present, thereby resulting in a loss of the employeesprivacy. Her statements were in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as well as paragraph 3A of the election principles agreement; • Grant threatened employees with loss of their jobs if the union won the election in violation of the National Labor Relations Act as well as paragraph 3A of the election principles agreement.
Case No. 92CW333: Any and all water rights claimed, decreed or adjudicated by the District Court in and for Water Division 5 in Case No. 92CW333 (Bypass Water case), as the decree and rights adjudicated in that case may be perfected or amended from time to time, as well as any and all related plans for augmentation, permits, fixtures, facilities, rights‑of‑way, or other water rights, including but not limited to the following:
Case No. 2:10-CV-02526-MCE-CMK
Case No. CV 12-cv-505-LPS joint Stipulation Of dismissal with prejudice The Hon. Leonard Stark Chief United States District Court Judge Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff, Enzo Life Sciences, Inc., and Defendant, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc., by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims in this action. Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs. Respectfully submitted, FARNAN LLP ________________ Brian E. Farnan (#4089) 919 North Market Street, 12th Flr Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 777-0336 bfarnan@farnanlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. MORRIS NICHOLS ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP ______________________ Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014) Derek J. Fahnestock (#4705) 1201 North Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 jblumenfeld@mnat.com dfahnestock@mnat.com Attorneys for Defendant Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Inc.
Case No. 16-CR-175, Trial Transcript, In Chambers Conference at p. 5 (Apr. 25, 2018).
Case No. 2020-00174, Kentucky Power Aug. 12, 2022 Filing at unnumbered page 2. On August 17, 2022, Attorney General/KIUC filed a joint response to Kentucky Power’s filing and requested that an informal conference be scheduled to make an expeditious determination regarding the amount of non-fuel, non-environmental Rockport costs currently recovered in base rates and the amount of Rockport environmental savings.26 Attorney General/KIUC identified issues arising from the termination of the Rockport UPA, some of which should reduce rates and others that would increase expenses. Attorney General/KIUC expressed a concern that unless the Rockport Offset was calculated based upon a historic test year that did not include projected transaction costs from the pending acquisition of Kentucky Power by Liberty Utilities Co. (Liberty) Kentucky Power ratepayers could pay for additional acquisition costs not envisioned in the settlement agreement approved, as modified, in Case No. 2017-00179. Attorney General/KIUC also expressed a concern that the Commission would have an abbreviated review of the Rockport Fixed Cost Savings credit and Rockport Offset calculation if Kentucky Power filed the information no later than November 15, 2022, for rates effective December 9, 2022. Finally, Attorney General/KIUC argued that it was not clear what WACC Kentucky Power was using or the amount of the unamortized Rockport Deferral Regulatory Asset balance. On August 22, 2022, Kentucky Power filed a response to Attorney General/KIUC’s filing, requesting that the Commission’s “expeditious establishment of rates” to recover
Case No. 2:20-cv-02152 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 8, 2021).