Search for: "State v. Eder" Results 1 - 20 of 152
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 May 2024, 1:23 pm by Amy Howe
” “Such caution,” he explained, “is necessary because “[f]ederal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions. [read post]
29 Mar 2024, 8:22 am by admin
United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. [read post]
3 Jul 2023, 4:07 am by INFORRM
On 29 June 2023, judgment was handed down in R v Dent, 2023 ONCA 460. [read post]
15 Jun 2023, 12:32 pm by Ronald Mann
ShareOn Thursday in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. [read post]
23 Apr 2023, 2:42 pm by Russell Knight
“[F]ederal courts have no jurisdiction over suits for divorce or the allowance of alimony. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 7:01 am by Genevieve Nadeau
The Supreme Court has never adopted the theory (indeed, it has previously rejected it), but recently agreed to hear Moore v. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:02 pm by Public Employment Law Press
"[F]ederal constitutional claims may not be asserted in the Court of Claims, given that the statutory basis for such claims, 42 USC § 1983, authorizes claims only against a 'person' and defendant is not a person within the meaning of this statute" (Oppenheimer v State of New York, 152 AD3d 1006, 1008 [2017]; accord Moreland v State of New York, 200 AD3d 1362, 1365 [2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 906 [2022]; see Will v Michigan… [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 9:02 pm by Public Employment Law Press
"[F]ederal constitutional claims may not be asserted in the Court of Claims, given that the statutory basis for such claims, 42 USC § 1983, authorizes claims only against a 'person' and defendant is not a person within the meaning of this statute" (Oppenheimer v State of New York, 152 AD3d 1006, 1008 [2017]; accord Moreland v State of New York, 200 AD3d 1362, 1365 [2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 906 [2022]; see Will v Michigan… [read post]
21 Mar 2022, 4:29 am by Peter J. Sluka
  Once complete, “the plaintiff gets an order directing payment of the sum of money found due” (Ederer v Gursky, 881 NE 2d 204 [2007]). [read post]
18 Dec 2021, 9:54 am by Eric Segall
This limitation is constitutionally mandated, separating our branch from our political co-branches. '[F]ederal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.' [quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. [read post]