Search for: "Does 1-78"
Results 1 - 20
of 2,547
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Jul 2012, 9:33 am
Download Popofsky ALJ 78-1 FINAL_ant102 [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 9:33 am
Download Popofsky ALJ 78-1 FINAL_ant102 [read post]
8 Sep 2010, 6:36 pm
This result was probably preordained in light of Fontanetta v Doe, 73 AD3d 78 (2d Dept [...] [read post]
19 Nov 2010, 4:01 am
Cohen agreed with Westchester County that the petition improperly names John Does "1" through "100" as Petitioners.The court said that although CPLR 1024 provides for the naming of unknown parties as defendants in an action, it does not provide for the naming of unidentified Petitioners in an Article 78 proceeding.The judge also faulted the Association for failing to come forward with any statutory authority for naming unknown Petitioners,… [read post]
5 Sep 2017, 2:05 pm
Erin Buzuvis (Western New England), Title IX and Procedural Fairness: Why Disciplined-Student Litigation Does Not Undermine the Role of Title IX in Campus Sexual Assault, 78... [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 11:22 am
Call us at 1-877-78-TAXES [1-877-788-2937]. [read post]
20 Apr 2010, 6:45 am
§292 [False Marking](TriPharma Against Defendants and Does 1 through 10)78. [read post]
15 Feb 2023, 4:30 am
Eliminativism in Legal Philosophy (Washington University Jurisprudence Review 15(1) 2022: 29-78) on SSRN. [read post]
3 May 2012, 3:33 am
Filing an administrative appeal does not extend or toll the statute of limitations for filing a timely Article 78 petition A former teacher asked Supreme Court to annul the determination of the New York City Department of Education (DOE) that terminated her employment. [read post]
22 Nov 2013, 6:00 am
Weisser, 78 Cal. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
The penalty imposed: a fine in the amount of $20,000.Plaintiff brought an Article 78 action challenging the Board's determination and the fine it imposed. [read post]
14 Apr 2020, 4:00 am
The penalty imposed: a fine in the amount of $20,000.Plaintiff brought an Article 78 action challenging the Board's determination and the fine it imposed. [read post]
14 Apr 2015, 12:44 pm
” The Appellate Division concluded that the August 2012 determination did not serve to revive the limitations period, as the School District adhered to its initial determination without a fresh examination based on newly presented evidence.Accordingly, the Appellate Division ruled that “this proceeding is barred by the four-month statute of limitations set forth in CPLR 217(1). [read post]
21 Jan 2016, 4:00 am
According to NewsdzeZimbabwe, the court held that Sec. 78(1) of Zimbabwe's Constitution invalidates Sec. 22(1) of the Marriage Act that allowed girls (with consent of their parents or guardians) to marry at age 16 and boys to marry at age 18, and in addition allowed either to marry at a younger age with the consent of the Minister of Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs. [read post]
26 May 2015, 8:00 am
The Appellate Division explained that such refusal “does not state a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation” as Member could have presented her own defense in the action, and any alleged misconduct The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_04234.htm [read post]
14 Mar 2017, 5:50 am
Micropole SA, (CJEU, March 14, 2017), however, the Court's Grand Chamber held that where an employer does not have a general rule on dress:Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that the willingness of an employer to take account of the wishes of a customer no longer to have the services of that employer provided by a worker… [read post]
16 Nov 2020, 5:00 am
" Citing Matter of Adlerstein v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 64 NY2d 90, the Appellate Division concluded:1. [read post]
16 Nov 2020, 5:00 am
" Citing Matter of Adlerstein v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y., 64 NY2d 90, the Appellate Division concluded:1. [read post]
1 Dec 2023, 6:50 am
As for post-deprivation process, the plaintiffs were able to file an Article 78 petition in state court. [read post]
16 Jul 2019, 4:48 am
In this action the Appellate Division affirmed Supreme Court dismissal of the Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking to annul the appointing authority's termination of Plaintiff's on the grounds that it was untimely, explaining that CPLR §217(1) requires that an Article 78 proceeding challenging an individual's termination from government employment must be brought within four months from the date on which the appointing… [read post]
