Search for: "Matter of Kenny F." Results 1 - 20 of 55
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Dec 2021, 3:00 am by Jim Sedor
” The matter now goes to the Justice Department, which will decide whether to pursue the contempt referral. [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 7:25 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Matter of Kenny v DiNapoli, 11 NY3d 873, the Appellate Division observed that "[f]or purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, an accident is defined as "a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact" and "an injury that results from the performance of ordinary employment duties and is a risk inherent in such job duties is not considered accidental. [read post]
7 Sep 2021, 7:25 am by Public Employment Law Press
Citing Matter of Kenny v DiNapoli, 11 NY3d 873, the Appellate Division observed that "[f]or purposes of the Retirement and Social Security Law, an accident is defined as "a sudden, fortuitous mischance, unexpected, out of the ordinary, and injurious in impact" and "an injury that results from the performance of ordinary employment duties and is a risk inherent in such job duties is not considered accidental. [read post]
18 May 2019, 9:27 am by MOTP
Apr. 26, 2019).While the resolution of the case pivots on issues of contract law in the leasing context, the lengthy portion of the opinion addressing the matter of attorneys fees [see cut & pasted below] will have much broader impact across a wide array of practice areas. [read post]
1 May 2019, 7:51 am
(Esther Kiobel, one of the Ogoni 9 Pix Credit HERE)On 1 May 2019, the Court of the Hague (first instance) delivered its (very long) opinion in Case number C / 09/540872 / HA ZA 17-1048 brought by four widows of the Ogoni 9 against the Shell companies, including ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC in London, United Kingdom, with offices in The Hague, and SHELL PETROLEUM N.V. in The Hague. [read post]
26 Apr 2019, 9:53 am by MOTP
While claiming to merely “clarify” its prior precedents on the matter, and acknowledging no major break with the longstanding Arthur Andersen fee-factors framework, the Texas high court will have accomplished much more. [read post]