Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
401(k) and IRA and Divorce in Indiana There are several key things you should know about splitting up a 401(k) in a divorce . First, the judge will determine which portion of the plan assets is ...
Canadian courts recognize there are circumstances in which the employer, although not acting explicitly to terminate an individual's employment, alters the employment relationship's terms and conditions to such a degree that an employee is entitled to regard the employer's conduct as a termination, and claim wrongful dismissal, just as if they ...
Jackson v. Indiana: Due process requires that the nature and duration of commitment bear some reasonable relation to the purpose for which the individual is committed." Reasoning that if commitment is for treatment and betterment of individuals, it must be accompanied by adequate treatment, several lower courts recognized a due process right ...
A Dallas Jury awarded Burke more than $1 million in April over his wrongful termination case, however, the city still had the opportunity to appeal. Birchett’s case was slated to start July 22 ...
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
No-fault divorce is the dissolution of a marriage that does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party. [1] [2] Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract.
A 72-year-old California woman has sued Home Depot for age discrimination and wrongful termination after the retail giant fired her for failing to stop $5,000 in fraudulent transactions.