Search for: "Parks v. Ins*"
Results 241 - 260
of 9,503
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 May 2011, 3:55 am
Involuntary leave under Civil Service Law Section 72NYC Parks and Recreation v Matthews, OATH, 219/00 The New York City Department of Parks and Recreation wanted to place Rufus Matthews on leave pursuant to Section 72 of the Civil Service Law. [read post]
15 Oct 2014, 10:18 am
Like Miranda v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 6:02 pm
In Parks v. [read post]
21 Jan 2008, 11:05 pm
The complaint (full text) in Holick v. [read post]
30 Jul 2011, 11:50 pm
The Baby Hammock Co Limited v AJ Park Law [2011] NZHC 686 (13 July 2011) The Baby Hammock Co Limited (‘BHC’) first sought advice from New Zealand’s largest intellectual property law firm, AJ Park, after one of its principals, Mrs Sarah Hannah, got to chatting with her neighbour on a flight from Wellington to Auckland, who happened to be an employee of the firm. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 9:18 am
Case citation: La Park La Brea A LLC v. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 9:18 am
Case citation: La Park La Brea A LLC v. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 9:01 pm
That case, Cutter v. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 4:00 am
Appellate Division holds that Commissioner of Education has initial jurisdiction to decide tenure area mattersMatter of Moraitis v Board of Educ. [read post]
9 Jun 2011, 4:00 am
Appellate Division holds that Commissioner of Education has initial jurisdiction to decide tenure area mattersMatter of Moraitis v Board of Educ. [read post]
18 Jun 2013, 3:00 am
A very recent case on beneficiary forms and disaster went all the way to the Supreme Court in Hillman v. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 12:50 pm
Florida v. [read post]
14 Dec 2016, 12:50 pm
Florida v. [read post]
26 Jul 2021, 4:05 am
In Cedar Park Assembly of God of Kirkland, Washington v. [read post]
28 Aug 2018, 12:33 pm
Earlier this year in Collins v. [read post]
24 Apr 2013, 3:18 pm
In Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC v. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 11:38 am
San Diegans For Open Government v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:00 am
Although this Court's review is limited to reviewing facts contained in the record (see Matter of Jorling v Adirondack Park Agency, 214 AD3d 98, 101-102 [3d Dept 2023]), we find that respondents' footnote was a permissible statement and argument encompassing the applicable statutory and regulatory authorities governing the handling of an incomplete permit application (see Reed v New York State Elec. [read post]
14 Jan 2018, 6:34 am
(Sindell v. [read post]
