Search for: "Elliott v. Elliott" Results 261 - 280 of 671
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
1 Sep 2011, 3:31 am
As to a court's authority to overturn or modify an administrative disciplinary decision or a disciplinary penalty imposed on a worker, the Court of Appeals, in its March 22, 2001 decision in Kelly v Safir, 96 N.Y.2d 32, [decided with Elliott v City of New York], said that: 1.The courts may not modify such a determination if substantial evidence supports it; and 2.A court must uphold an administrative penalty unless it finds that it is so disproportionate to the… [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 3:56 am
Judge Stallman, after commenting that Rivera failed to demonstrate the relevance of the Certificate insofar as this case was concerned, indicated that even if it were relevant, such a certificate does not exempt a civil servant from administrative discipline.As to a court's authority to overturn or modify an administrative disciplinary decision or a disciplinary penalty imposed on a worker, the Court of Appeals, in its March 22, 2001 decision in Kelly v Safir, [decided with… [read post]
23 May 2011, 4:16 pm by Robert Elliott, J.D.
    The case is Schindler Elevator Corp. v United States, 10-188. [read post]
10 Dec 2010, 6:55 am by Walter Olson
(I was in the audience) in which four law professors (Don Elliott of Yale, Martin Redish and Ronald Allen of Northwestern, and Rick Esenberg of Marquette) outlined ideas for reforming the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to reduce discovery costs and improve screening of cases in the earliest stages of filing. [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 11:03 pm by Sean Hayes
Penalties in Korean contracts Contract Drafting in South Korea Samsung’s Win Against Elliott is Korea’s Loss According to Bloomberg Guide to Establishing a Company in Korea: Branch vs. [read post]
18 Sep 2019, 3:01 am by Walter Olson
” [Institute for Justice “Short Circuit” on State v. [read post]
23 Oct 2018, 12:56 pm by Denise Elliott and Paul Clouser
Employers in Pennsylvania suffered a major blow, when the Impairment Rating provisions of Act 57, were invalidated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in the 2017 case of Protz v. [read post]