Search for: "State v. Court of Appeals, Division I"
Results 2661 - 2680
of 4,097
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jul 2012, 10:45 am
Another Court Finds that TCPA Applies to Text Messages -- Lozano v. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 9:01 am
Parkinson, who served as a member of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions from 2000 until very recently (including service as the committee’s first coordinator of appeals), cited in a law review article that only thirty-four of the ninety major infractions cases that went to a hearing from 2000 to 2009 were appealed. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 9:01 am
Parkinson, who served as a member of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions from 2000 until very recently (including service as the committee’s first coordinator of appeals), cited in a law review article that only thirty-four of the ninety major infractions cases that went to a hearing from 2000 to 2009 were appealed. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 6:10 am
Parkinson, who served as a member of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions from 2000 until very recently (including service as the committee’s first coordinator of appeals), cited in a law review article that only thirty-four of the ninety major infractions cases that went to a hearing from 2000 to 2009 were appealed. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 4:44 am
As to the role of the Town Supervisor in the proceeding and adjudication, the Appellate Division, citing Matter of Baker v Poughkeepsie City School Dist., 18 NY3d 714, noted that "Although '[i]nvolvement in the disciplinary process does not automatically require recusal,' . . . individuals 'who are personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process should disqualify themselves from . . . acting on the charges.'" Finding that… [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 11:34 am
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Probate Part, Burlington County, Docket No. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 4:08 am
The State Board of Workers' Compensation Appellate Division upheld the judge's action, as did the superior court, but last December, a narrow majority of the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
New Zealand police and the FBI haven’t responded, and it is highly likely the ruling will be appealed up through the New Zealand court system. [read post]
23 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
First, in May the New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) threw out Sullivan's claim for wrongful termination of his employment as compliance officer of a hedge fund known as Peconic Partners. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 8:40 pm
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Four, held in a published decision, Ralph’s Grocery Co. v. [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 5:56 pm
In 2008 the Court of Appeal allowed fresh evidence to be adduced on appeal which contradicted the video expert’s testimony. [read post]
18 Jul 2012, 5:01 am
Capello, 2012 WL 2811535 (Superior Court of New Jersey – Appellate Division 2012). [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 1:57 am
Further, although as I have stated it is very possible that the court will decide to make a reference at the conclusion of the trial, I am not convinced that such reference will be necessary, which is of course a pre-condition to the jurisdiction to make a reference at all". [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 1:32 pm
The State of Kerala appealed. [read post]
14 Jul 2012, 3:00 am
In applying the OML, the courts construe its provisions liberally in accordance with its stated purposes (see Perez, 5 NY3d at 528; Gordon v Village of Monticello, 87 NY2d 124, 127 [1995]; Encore Coll. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 7:27 am
Such an assessment was made of two (Mc)marks by the General Court in Case T-466/09 Comercial Losan SLU v OHMI, as reported last Friday on the Class 46 blog. [read post]
13 Jul 2012, 6:54 am
When Mr Grant appealed, however, the Second Division (Court of Sessions) set aside the order. [read post]
12 Jul 2012, 7:30 am
Raw Text of Opinion UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION MACKLE VINCENT SHELTON, Petitioner, v. [read post]
11 Jul 2012, 6:13 pm
In a 3-2 decision, the three-justice majority of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, AFFIRMED the judgment appealed from, agreeing with the motion court that the exclusion's language was ambiguous: It is axiomatic that, "to negate coverage by virtue of an exclusion, an insurer must establish that the exclusion is stated in clear and unmistakable language, is subject to no other reasonable interpretation, and applies in the particular case'… [read post]
9 Jul 2012, 7:09 am
Hinton, supra.)The other reason was that case law from another division of the Court of Appeals established a “distinction in article I, § 7 jurisprudence between when a governmental officer intercepts a message transmitted from the sender to the recipient and when a governmental officer views a message received by a third party. [read post]
