Search for: "W.K. V. STATE"
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Dec 2023, 10:00 pm
It is only after that process is completed that equitable relief may be pursued.Since W.K. first needed to exhaust all “administrative remedies” with the PHHPC, (as outlined in the state’s Public Health Law), before seeking an injunction, the AD2 thought the order compelling his admittance was issued prematurely and was thus rescinded.This couldn't be what the doctor ordered ….# # #DECISIONW.K. v New York Presbyt. [read post]
6 May 2019, 7:05 am
In Matter of W.K. v. [read post]
1 Apr 2020, 7:00 am
Chiropractic Center DA 19-0327 2020 MT 74 Civil – Negligence State v. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 8:36 am
” A.J.B. cites to United States v. [read post]
19 Jan 2010, 11:42 am
Fox (1991), 57 B.C.L.R. (2d) 332 (C.A.); and W.K. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
Pix Credit hereWhile interest in this case, HKSAR v Lai Man Ling [2022] 4 HKC 410, [2022] HKDC 355, reported in September 2022, may be diminishing, its relevance requires sustained examination. [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 8:01 am
Kea, T.W.Kee, & W.K. [read post]
19 Dec 2020, 1:57 pm
For instance, her exploration of the vice of credulity, as voiced by W.K. [read post]
19 Dec 2020, 1:57 pm
For instance, her exploration of the vice of credulity, as voiced by W.K. [read post]
1 Sep 2023, 8:08 am
Burkel, et al., for the CDC v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons,” 384 New Engl. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 9:12 pm
United States and United States v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 1:47 pm
The ‘Junk’ decision in 2005 (C-188/03, Junk v Kuhnel) has meant, that worker consultations need now take place before any final decision on job losses is taken. [read post]
28 Jun 2022, 7:13 am
The Bradford Hill Predicate: Ruling Out Random and Systematic Error In two recent posts, I spent some time discussing a recent law review, which had some important things to say about specific causation.[1] One of several points from which I dissented was the article’s argument that Sir Austin Bradford Hill had not made explicit that ruling out random and systematic error was required before assessing his nine “viewpoints” on whether an association was causal. [read post]
