Search for: "Ortiz v. Ortiz" Results 201 - 220 of 974
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Apr 2010, 11:25 am by James Bickford
Video Software Dealers Association and Ortiz v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 9:56 am by Kent Scheidegger
The US Supreme Court decided a crime-related civil procedure case involving qualified immunity in Ortiz v. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 12:34 pm by snahmod
Qualified Immunity Fundamentals Qualified immunity under section 1983 is a powerful affirmative defense, protecting a state or local government official sued in an individual capacity from damages liability where the official can show that he or she acted with a reasonable belief in the constitutionality of the challenged conduct. [read post]
19 Oct 2018, 4:32 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Spiegel v Ahearn  2018 NY Slip Op 32472(U)  October 1, 2018  Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 101251/2016  Judge: Melissa A. [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 5:17 am by Howard Wasserman
For example, last week I was reading the transcript of the oral argument in Ortiz v. [read post]
18 Jul 2014, 6:28 am by Joy Waltemath
Accordingly, it granted summary judgment on his failure to accommodate claim (Ortiz v Board of Education of City of Chicago, July 14, 2014, Marovich, G). [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Citing NYS Office of Children and Family Services v Lanterman, 14 NY 3d 275, the Appellate Division said that it is undisputed that Michel "did not engage in any conduct that would have subjected him to allegations of incompetence or misconduct" and concluded that §75 of the Civil Service Law was inapplicable in his situation.In Lanterman the Court of Appeals held that the grievances brought by two employees, Lanterman's and Ortiz's, challenging… [read post]
26 Nov 2018, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
" Citing NYS Office of Children and Family Services v Lanterman, 14 NY 3d 275, the Appellate Division said that it is undisputed that Michel "did not engage in any conduct that would have subjected him to allegations of incompetence or misconduct" and concluded that §75 of the Civil Service Law was inapplicable in his situation.In Lanterman the Court of Appeals held that the grievances brought by two employees, Lanterman's and Ortiz's, challenging… [read post]