Search for: "State v. McKinney" Results 201 - 220 of 450
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Aug 2015, 6:45 pm
These grounds all contemplate a fiduciary likely to jeopardize estate property (Turano, Practice Commentaries, Book 58A, McKinney's Consolidated Laws of New York, 707, p. 530). [read post]
12 Jul 2015, 5:34 pm
Since the IRS is not a party to this proceeding and in any event would not be bound by any determination of this court under Commissioner v. [read post]
23 Jun 2015, 9:35 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Committee Report on Court Reorganization [1962], Family Ct.Act, p. 2, McKinney Session Laws, 1962, p. 3430). [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 6:51 am by Amy Howe
” At the Knowledge Center of the Council of State Governments, Lisa Soronen discusses the Court’s recent grant in another redistricting case, Shapiro v. [read post]
28 May 2015, 6:00 am by Administrator
Some distinguish private university libraries by stating that there is no public right to use them. [read post]
25 May 2015, 3:23 pm
Page 567 658 N.Y.S.2d 567 172 Misc.2d 186 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
25 May 2015, 3:23 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Page 567 658 N.Y.S.2d 567 172 Misc.2d 186 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. [read post]
25 May 2015, 2:13 pm by Stephen Bilkis
" (Governor's Mem, 1980 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 1877-1878.) [read post]
25 May 2015, 2:13 pm
" (Governor's Mem, 1980 McKinney's Session Laws of NY, at 1877-1878.) [read post]
25 May 2015, 11:54 am by Stephen Bilkis
Quintana, 237 A.D.2d 130, 654 N.Y.S.2d 27; Merola v Merola, supra; Kilmer v Kilmer, supra; Leffingwell v Leffingwell, supra ). [read post]
25 May 2015, 11:54 am
Quintana, 237 A.D.2d 130, 654 N.Y.S.2d 27; Merola v Merola, supra; Kilmer v Kilmer, supra; Leffingwell v Leffingwell, supra ). [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 1:56 pm by Stephen Bilkis
The bill as it now stands, demonstrates a legislative intent to construe that provision as retroactive.' (McKinney's Session Laws 1968, ch. 700, p. 2308; see LeClaire v. [read post]