Search for: "York v York" Results 2821 - 2840 of 52,891
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Jul 2023, 9:15 am by Amanda M. Gómez and Shira M. Blank
On June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to weigh in on whether gender dysphoria can qualify as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), allowing to stand the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Williams v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 4:30 am by Lawrence Solum
Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 142 S.Ct. 2228 (2022) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 4:14 am by Peter J. Sluka
Gallagher v Lambert In 1989, a divided Court of Appeals held that the at-will employment agreement trumps any heightened duty that the majority would otherwise have to exercise the corporation’s redemption rights: “There being no dispute that the employer had the unfettered discretion to fire plaintiff at any time, we should not redefine the precise measuring device and scope of the agreement” (Gallagher v Lambert, 74 NY2d 562, 567 [1989]). [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 4:00 am by jonathanturley
 For that reason, the Court has often stood with the least popular in our society and, since Marbury v. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 6:00 am by Jordan Steinberg
While some companies have made the argument successfully that they had no knowledge of a partner’s intentions to transport their goods to New York (Ortiz v Food Mach. of Am., Inc.) (2014 NY Slip Op. 31868[U] [Bronx Ct. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 4:34 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
In Thacker v Constantine Cannon, LLP 2023 NY Slip Op 32376(U) July 14, 2023Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: Index No. 155930/2018Judge: James d’Auguste it is too early for the court to decide who did what. [read post]
21 Jul 2023, 4:30 am by Lawrence Solum
New York (Frankfurter, J., joined by Jackson and Burton, JJ., dissenting) and "good" - AFL v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 11:00 pm
”And in response to the defendant’s objection as to the timeliness of the litigation, the AD2 thought that while the plaintiffs may have missed the window to bring the claim under a New York State “theft of equity” statute, [Real Property Law § 265-a], they timely brought their common-law fraud claim within the governing six-year period [CPLR 213[8]].Now there’s no voiding that ….# # #DECISIONR. v K & Y. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 9:38 am by Norman L. Eisen
On Wednesday, reporting by The New York Times and Bloomberg News detailed which charges the letter actually contained. [read post]