Search for: "State v. Means"
Results 1981 - 2000
of 61,243
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
The New York State and Local Police and Fire Retirement System denied petitioner's application upon the ground that the incident did not constitute an accident within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363. [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 1:01 am
Chief Justice Morrison Waite In United States v. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 7:12 pm
The decision of First Department, in King v. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 7:12 pm
The decision of First Department, in King v. [read post]
10 Nov 2016, 2:35 pm
In Ghiselli v. [read post]
5 Dec 2013, 6:37 pm
Possessing marijuana is legal in many states but what does this mean for law enforcement officers who smell an odor of marijuana in a state where the substance is legal to possess? [read post]
17 May 2016, 12:46 pm
The issues before the court were whether special counsel are "state officers" within the meaning of 15 USC § 1692a(6)(C) [text]; and whether... [read post]
8 Jan 2015, 4:37 am
Arnold of Arnold & Smith, PLLC answers the question “The insurance adjuster is saying I am partially negligent what does that mean? [read post]
18 Sep 2018, 5:45 am
This right, however, has often been limited by federal courts under abstention doctrines, which means the state courts that are causing the abuses of the law are the only places to address the abuses of the law. [read post]
22 Jan 2018, 3:06 am
” (See Schaecher v. [read post]
17 Oct 2023, 5:51 am
State v. [read post]
28 Jan 2010, 10:00 am
Should Collier v. [read post]
28 Feb 2023, 7:48 am
” ,Pennoyer v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 11:43 am
” In an 1888 case called Banks v. [read post]
2 Aug 2017, 6:18 pm
Iskanian v. [read post]
1 Jul 2010, 7:54 pm
Besides Alito’s plurality decision in McDonald v. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 4:47 am
Slipping and falling as the result of an undetectable unknown substance on road constitutes an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law Sammon v DiNapoli, 2012 NY Slip Op 05587, Appellate Division, Third Department City of Yonkers Firefighter Michael M. [read post]
13 Feb 2020, 6:39 am
In Department of Homeland Security v. [read post]
2 Apr 2009, 1:01 pm
That's because before Marin v. [read post]
14 Jun 2017, 2:05 am
Thus the Supreme Court held that the policy of ‘deport first; appeal later’ is a violation of human rights as an appeal against a deportation order by reference to a claim in respect of private and family life under ECHR, art 8 should be effective, and this means there must be an opportunity for appellants to give live evidence to assist the tribunal. [read post]
