Search for: "Cross v. State"
Results 2601 - 2620
of 16,692
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Feb 2024, 11:55 am
” In response, the court stated, “Essentially, you’re doing it from a phone in a car, and you can’t use your phone to look at documents and appear in a hearing. [read post]
29 Jan 2014, 9:52 am
In FTC v. [read post]
27 Oct 2014, 7:48 am
The joint venture ended on bad terms, and the Prince and Apex cross-petitioned each other seeking relief from the court against the unfairly prejudicial conduct of the third company’s affairs. [read post]
1 Feb 2016, 8:44 am
In Garcia v. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 6:49 am
Plaintiff then filed her claims in state court under the State and City Human Rights Laws. [read post]
1 Feb 2012, 5:23 am
” In United States v. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 2:24 am
Weaving v. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 2:24 am
Weaving v. [read post]
9 Dec 2014, 2:24 am
Weaving v. [read post]
19 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division, affirming the lower court ruling in each action, said that "When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action," citing Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
" Further, as the decision in Walton v New York State Department of Correctional Servs., 25 AD3d 999, modified, 8 NY3d at 191, notes, "an individual is not required to exhaust the available administrative remedy where such action would constitute an exercise in futility. [read post]
30 Aug 2023, 6:00 am
" Further, as the decision in Walton v New York State Department of Correctional Servs., 25 AD3d 999, modified, 8 NY3d at 191, notes, "an individual is not required to exhaust the available administrative remedy where such action would constitute an exercise in futility. [read post]
19 Aug 2021, 4:00 am
The Appellate Division, affirming the lower court ruling in each action, said that "When a party moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the standard is whether the pleading states a cause of action, not whether the proponent of the pleading has a cause of action," citing Sokol v Leader, 74 AD3d 1180. [read post]
8 Jun 2014, 7:53 pm
Barrett’s opinion was not undermined during his lengthy cross-examination. [read post]
28 Jun 2007, 10:03 am
The judge stated that if the contribution included something else (e.g. new physical combination of hardware), it may be entitled to protection. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 6:54 am
In Barrett v. [read post]
31 Oct 2012, 4:39 am
Lady Hale and Lord Carnwath give a short joint judgment concurring with the majority in relation to the Secretary of State’s appeal but dissenting on the cross appeal. [read post]
6 Jun 2017, 7:37 am
And what does this have to do with Impression Products v. [read post]
14 Oct 2016, 4:07 pm
In a decision handed down on 24 June 2016 (TLT and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 2217 (QB)) Mitting J ordered the Home Office to pay six claimants a combined total of £39,500 for the misuse of private information and breaches of the Data Protection Act (“DPA”) 1998 arising from the publication online of a spreadsheet. [read post]
