Search for: "Lights v. Kelly" Results 181 - 200 of 469
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
6 Sep 2017, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
"Citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32, the Appellate Division held that the penalty was not shockingly disproportionate to the offense "in light of the extent of [Oberman's]  misconduct, the warnings he had received against such misconduct, his failure to accept responsibility, and the high ethical standards to which he was held as an attorney. [read post]
29 Jun 2017, 7:30 am by The Public Employment Law Press
"*As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the court, quoting from Kelly, 96 NY2d at 38,  concluded that the penalty of termination is not shocking to one's sense of fairness noting that "Judicial review of an administrative penalty is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty or discipline imposed constitutes an abuse of discretion as a matter of law . . . [read post]
14 Jan 2009, 7:44 am
[It seems like this case will be remanded for reconsideration in light of Pecina v. [read post]
9 Mar 2022, 4:00 am by Administrator
Kelly, 2022 ONSC 1402 [81] The principles that apply in determining whether to impute income are the same in both child support and spousal support cases: Crowe v. [read post]
26 Jun 2007, 10:18 am
Kelly Hickman (NFP) - "Here, Hickman merely presented her own personal circumstances, together with a plea to the trial court to lower her garnishment. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 7:34 am by Kiran Bhat
Holder for this blog, while Kelly Phillips Erb does the same at Forbes. [read post]
24 Nov 2015, 7:24 pm by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento
The public is welcome to this event, and The Art & Law Program will provide light snacks and refreshments. [read post]
27 Apr 2018, 6:47 am by John Elwood
Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit erred when it affirmed the exclusion of the petitioner’s expert rebuttal testimony regarding his future dangerousness in violation of Kelly v. [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 9:36 am by Alfred Brophy
 He quotes Kramer's discussion of the 1958 decision in Cooper v. [read post]