Search for: "Sweeney v. Sweeney"
Results 241 - 260
of 444
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jan 2012, 8:55 am
Sweeney, 70 M.J. 296 (C.A.A.F. 2011), resolve the medical examiner surrogate issue? [read post]
22 Sep 2009, 3:30 am
The defendant in State v. [read post]
24 Jul 2011, 8:10 pm
V. [read post]
16 Dec 2008, 1:32 pm
Andrias, J.P., Nardelli, Sweeney, DeGrasse, ... [read post]
28 May 2012, 9:39 pm
United States v. [read post]
4 Nov 2009, 1:34 pm
Sweeney Miller, a firm on Watermill’s panel, were instructed: “Some time around the end of October 2006 Watermill sent Sweeney Miller an e-mail introducing Miss Scrowther and giving brief details of the transaction. [read post]
3 Oct 2008, 4:29 am
"Sweeney noted the minority dissent "essentially agreed" with the argument he had made. [read post]
26 Jan 2014, 4:00 am
Sweeney-Cunningham v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 4:04 am
However, Labor Law subdivisions 10 (professional educators) and 11 (non-professional educators) of §590.11 provide that such persons who are given a reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following school semester are ineligible for benefits if they are unemployed between successive semesters.For example, in Huff v Sweeney, Appellate Division, 222 A.D.2d 919, the Appellate Division ruled that teacher's aides who are provided with a reasonable assurance of… [read post]
1 May 2018, 7:18 am
In State v. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 12:43 am
" It's a credibility problem, and while Epic v. [read post]
25 Oct 2022, 11:32 pm
The slightly postponed Epic Games v. [read post]
6 May 2008, 10:10 am
In Hochhauser v. [read post]
2 Jul 2009, 4:10 am
However, Labor Law subdivisions 10 (professional educators) and 11 (non-professional educators) of §590.11 provide that such persons who are given a reasonable assurance of reemployment for the following school semester are ineligible for benefits if they are unemployed between successive semesters.For example, in Huff v Sweeney, Appellate Division, 222 A.D.2d 919, the Appellate Division ruled that teacher's aides who are provided with a reasonable assurance of… [read post]
28 Oct 2022, 11:23 pm
In a little over a fortnight--on November 14--the Fortnite antitrust case, Epic Games v. [read post]
24 Oct 2022, 8:25 am
That day is going to be (at least) doubly eventful from a FOSS Patents perspective as the Mannheim Regional Court will hold the first Ericsson v. [read post]
18 Nov 2021, 9:28 am
Apple judgment says.The consolation prize that is the Epic Games v. [read post]
7 Aug 2011, 10:18 am
Wuterich v. [read post]
19 Feb 2020, 4:00 am
As the Comptroller's determination — finding that Breslin was not permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of a light-duty assignment — is supported by substantial evidence, it will not be disturbed (see Matter of Sweeney v DiNapoli, 88 AD3d 1051, 1051 [2011]; Matter of Murray v New York State Comptroller, 84 AD3d 1681, 1682-1683 [2011]; Matter of Pascale v DiNapoli, 84 AD3d at 1680; Matter of Roache v Hevesi, 38 AD3d 1036,… [read post]
6 Nov 2011, 5:42 am
Sweeney, 70 M.J. 296 (C.A.A.F. 2011). [read post]
