Search for: "Matter of Smith v Condon"
Results 1 - 20
of 37
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Apr 2024, 3:23 pm
It would appear to be a straightforward matter on its face. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 5:02 am
From Cooper v. [read post]
30 Jun 2022, 9:40 am
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS Criminal Action No. 20-10177-PBS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. [read post]
14 Jun 2022, 2:51 pm
From James v. [read post]
6 Mar 2022, 9:01 pm
Hildebrandt (1916), Smiley v. [read post]
22 Dec 2021, 2:55 am
As a result, the Nokia v. [read post]
4 Nov 2021, 8:11 am
Norwegian goes on to cite the decision in Armor Screen Corp. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2020, 1:00 pm
The court’s decision in Fulton v. [read post]
30 Jan 2020, 1:06 pm
In U.S. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 4:27 am
Contrary to Devereaux’s contention, the allegedly defamatory statement made by Burrows was not actionable because it was absolutely privileged as a matter of law (see Brady v Gaudelli, 137 AD3d 951, 952; El Jamal v Weil, 116 AD3d 732, 734; Bisogno v Borsa, 101 AD3d 780, 781; Kilkenny v Law Off. of Cushner & Garvey, LLP, 76 AD3d 512, 513), and does not support a finding of a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 (see Seldon… [read post]
3 Aug 2018, 4:00 am
[Smith v Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612]Demoting an employee for sleeping on duty on two occasions, although a hearing officer found the employee’s supervisor had “condoned” such conduct and the hearing officer had recommended a suspension without pay for three weeks. [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 6:10 am
“of late, an important shift has occurred in the views of state and lower federal courts, which have increasingly found fault with “new-generation” SORN laws, which in many respects are more expansive and onerous than those condoned by the” Supreme Court in Smith v. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am
[Smith v Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612]Demoting an employee for sleeping on duty on two occasions, although a hearing officer found the employee’s supervisor had “condoned” such conduct and the hearing officer had recommended a suspension without pay for three weeks. [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 3:08 pm
Smith.[2] Most importantly, however, these hypothetical cases, no matter how sympathetic they might be in the eyes of some or all of the Justices, do not offer useful guidance regarding where the Court could draw any principled doctrinal lines on the compelled speech question. [read post]
27 Mar 2017, 3:46 am
While it may be understandable that blue lies matter, they matter to everyone, not just Trump supporters. [read post]
12 Feb 2017, 7:40 pm
In R. v. [read post]
4 Jan 2016, 10:17 am
The matter went all the way to the House of Lords and was a [read post]
13 Aug 2015, 2:27 pm
The district court observed: “The form does not require the county clerk to condone or endorse same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds. [read post]
26 May 2015, 11:46 am
ISRI’s members don’t do that or condone it. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 9:20 am
” Smith v. [read post]
