Search for: "Silver v. State Bar" Results 241 - 254 of 254
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Aug 2007, 2:40 am
Title616 A9244 Heastie -- Relates to the termination of a residential lease by a victim of domestic violence 615 A9206 Barclay -- Authorizes the town of Camillus to change the retirement plan that it offers to police officers and firefighters 614 A9145 Schimminger -- Extends the provisions relating to the registration of kegs 613 A9002A Sweeney (MS) -- Creates the New York state sea level rise task force… [read post]
12 Aug 2007, 9:48 am
” Even in the Florida 2000 election case of Bush v. [read post]
23 Jul 2007, 8:10 am
” See Energy Reserves Group v. [read post]
19 May 2007, 10:12 am
Rather, he invites the State to violate two of the most basic norms of a civilized society - that the State's penal authority be invoked only where necessary to serve the ends of justice, not the ends of a particular individual, and that punishment be imposed only where the State has adequate assurance that the punishment is justified.United States Supreme Court Justice, 1990(1)Robert Comer, Christopher Newton and Elijah Page have something in common, aside… [read post]
2 May 2007, 9:54 am
SILVER, FARRELL, CANESTRARI, GREENE -- read once and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means AN ACT to amend the judiciary law, in relation to the compensation of state-paid judges and justices of the unified court system; to amend the New York city civil court act, in relation to the compensation paid to New York city housing judges; to establish special commissions on compensation, and providing for their powers… [read post]
14 Jan 2007, 11:01 pm
" On the side of the silver lining, let's hope this study encourages states and counties to invest more in their PDs to try to reduce caseloads and [read post]
21 Nov 2006, 11:25 am
I am opposed to the proposed rules on three grounds  --  a misunderstanding of the concept of ethics (see Bates et. al. v State Bar of Arizona); the rules themselves will not likely be upheld at the first legal challenge to them; and there is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning of marketing for lawyers and the long-term effects of Bates in serving both law firms and, most significantly, clients. [read post]
10 Nov 2006, 1:29 pm
I am opposed to the proposed rules on three grounds  --  a misunderstanding of the concept of ethics (see Bates et. al. v State Bar of Arizona); the rules themselves will not likely be upheld at the first legal challenge to them; and there is clearly a misunderstanding of the meaning of marketing for lawyers and the long-term effects of Bates in serving both law firms and, most significantly, clients. [read post]