Search for: "Doe v. Smith"
Results 2221 - 2240
of 7,275
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Dec 2010, 3:19 am
See McGowan v, Smith, 52 NY2d 268, 272 (1981). [read post]
7 Nov 2018, 8:48 am
., Martin v. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 3:38 pm
Eng’g Corp., 294 U.S. 42, 48 (1935); Smith v. [read post]
29 Jan 2015, 8:30 am
State v. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 8:50 am
Railroad Commission of Texas and Pioneer Exploration, Ltd. v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 9:01 pm
Judge Smith’s decision correctly relied upon the Supreme Court’s First Amendment decisions in Bowen v. [read post]
28 Aug 2012, 5:43 am
In Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 9:36 pm
The case, Adar v. [read post]
19 Feb 2019, 1:23 pm
Return Mail argues that the USPS cannot initiate the proceeding because the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) only allows a “person” to initiate the proceedings, which does not include the government. [read post]
24 Jul 2007, 5:31 am
Actually, the 5th Circuit didn't quite say it, but that's the message I got from today's opinion in Custer v. [read post]
22 Jul 2011, 11:04 am
"The Fox Group, Inc. v. [read post]
16 Aug 2022, 5:01 am
The present doctrinal development begins with Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. [read post]
16 Mar 2009, 11:45 am
LLC v. [read post]
18 Dec 2011, 9:22 pm
Gracie v. [read post]
31 Oct 2011, 7:00 am
This focus on eyewitness identifications will then continue next week, at oral argument in Smith v. [read post]
30 Mar 2007, 12:03 am
See, e.g., Smith v. [read post]
12 May 2010, 8:09 pm
Doe and Dep’t of Public Safety v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"In determining what constitutes . . . compensation paid in anticipation of retirement, we must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it" (Matter of Green v Regan, 103 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Smith v DiNapoli, 167 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Chichester v DiNapoli, 108 AD3d 924, 925 [3d Dept 2013]). [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
"In determining what constitutes . . . compensation paid in anticipation of retirement, we must look to the substance of the transaction and not to what the parties may label it" (Matter of Green v Regan, 103 AD2d 878, 878-879 [3d Dept 1984]; see Matter of Smith v DiNapoli, 167 AD3d at 1210; Matter of Chichester v DiNapoli, 108 AD3d 924, 925 [3d Dept 2013]). [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am
Given the absence of a provision for prior approval — a finding that petitioner does not dispute — the Comptroller appropriately found that the agreements do not cover when or how petitioner worked overtime. [read post]
