Search for: "May v. Levy et al"
Results 1 - 20
of 169
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 May 2024, 10:00 am
Dan v City of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02659Decided on May 14, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 14, 2024Before: Oing, J.P., González, Kennedy, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, JJ.Index No. 21313/16 Appeal No. 2265 Case No. 2023-03010[*1]Janet… [read post]
15 May 2024, 10:00 am
Dan v City of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02659Decided on May 14, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 14, 2024Before: Oing, J.P., González, Kennedy, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, JJ.Index No. 21313/16 Appeal No. 2265 Case No. 2023-03010[*1]Janet… [read post]
14 May 2024, 6:00 am
Matter of Davis v Schley2024 NY Slip Op 02614Decided on May 10, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 10, 2024Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Shulman, Higgitt, O'Neill-Levy, JJ.Index No. 153380/24 Appeal No. 2415 Case No.… [read post]
14 May 2024, 6:00 am
Matter of Davis v Schley2024 NY Slip Op 02614Decided on May 10, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 10, 2024Before: Moulton, J.P., Scarpulla, Shulman, Higgitt, O'Neill-Levy, JJ.Index No. 153380/24 Appeal No. 2415 Case No.… [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:43 am
Source: USPTO Rothschild moved to dismiss the complaint under the Second Circuit’s Rogers v. [read post]
10 Apr 2024, 5:08 pm
Does 1-2 et. al. v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 7:03 am
Newport News School Bd, et al. , 2023 Va. [read post]
14 Mar 2024, 9:08 am
Air Resources Board, et al. [read post]
23 Feb 2024, 1:04 pm
The latest is the landmark ruling by Justice Aylen of the Federal Court in Province of Alberta et al v. [read post]
27 Jan 2024, 7:54 pm
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] On January 18, Professor Akhil Reed Amar and Professor Vikram Amar filed an amicus brief in Trump v. [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
Thus, petitioner has failed to prove that the distribution of these stickers affected the outcome of the budget vote (Appeal of Casey-Tomasi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,301; Appeal of Crawford, et al., 47 id. 413, Decision No. 15,739; Appeal of Holliday, 42 id. 242, Decision No. 14,840). [read post]
3 Oct 2023, 6:00 am
Thus, petitioner has failed to prove that the distribution of these stickers affected the outcome of the budget vote (Appeal of Casey-Tomasi, 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,301; Appeal of Crawford, et al., 47 id. 413, Decision No. 15,739; Appeal of Holliday, 42 id. 242, Decision No. 14,840). [read post]
20 Jun 2023, 7:09 pm
Part V concludes with a report card on how the regime is doing on its thirtieth anniversary. [read post]
14 Jun 2023, 4:40 am
Another case titled Levy v Estate of Mahler et. al., Sup. [read post]
26 May 2023, 11:37 am
[1] Perry Bonin, et al., v. [read post]
30 Jan 2023, 11:26 am
Levy extrapolates from her research on truck drivers to consider the impact of surveillance methods in all types of workplaces, the road, policing and modern sports. [read post]
11 Jan 2023, 9:51 am
Generation and wide usage of such content may incur legal actions, as both the US and the UK regard an act of sharing of explicit content and imagery generated without consent as a crime. [read post]
6 Dec 2022, 3:45 am
(It may also encourage additional consumption.) [read post]
11 Nov 2022, 7:44 am
Mezey v. [read post]
7 Nov 2022, 2:57 am
The report conducts a “sociotechnical audit” to evaluate the use of facial recognition and argues that it may, in its current form, “infringe upon human rights such as the right to privacy. [read post]