Search for: "Banks v. State" Results 1981 - 2000 of 15,804
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jan 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
* In a footnote in its decision, the Appellate Division said "Federal retaliation claims under Title VII are subject to the same standards as those of the New York State Human Rights Law and therefore highly instructive as to the claim at bar", citing Banks v General Motors, LLC, 81 F4th 242 and Collins v Indart-Etienne, 59 Misc 3d 1026.Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision Posted on the Internet. [read post]
3 Jan 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
* In a footnote in its decision, the Appellate Division said "Federal retaliation claims under Title VII are subject to the same standards as those of the New York State Human Rights Law and therefore highly instructive as to the claim at bar", citing Banks v General Motors, LLC, 81 F4th 242 and Collins v Indart-Etienne, 59 Misc 3d 1026.Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision Posted on the Internet. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 11:53 am by Marty Lederman
”  Moreover, even apart from inconsistency with federal statutes, such a dismissal could well be an unconstitutional state interference with legitimate federal functions, analogous to Maryland’s tax on the federal bank in McCulloch v. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 2:31 am by sally
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Anam v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1140 (19 October 2010) KG Bominflot Bunkergesellschaft Für Mineraloele mBH & Co v Petroplus Marketing AG ( the Mercini Lady) [2010] EWCA Civ 1145 (19 October 2010) Bolsover District Council & Anor v Ashfield Nominees Ltd & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1129 (19 October 2010) High Court (Chancery Division) Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Markandan… [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 1:00 pm by McNabb Associates, P.C.
-EU Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement, specifically: mutual legal assistance to administrative authorities; expedited transmission of requests; use limitations; identification of bank information; joint investigative teams; and video conferencing. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 5:22 pm by Mack Sperling
  Judge Bledsoe stated that: North Carolina law is clear that 'a party is not entitled to find out, by discovery, which witnesses his opponent intends to call at the trial.' Order ¶24 (quoting King v. [read post]