Search for: "Condon v. State" Results 281 - 300 of 970
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 Jun 2018, 4:00 am by Malcolm Mercer
In concluding that deference was required in considering Law Society rules, Justice Wagner stated that “In the case at bar, the legislature specifically gave the Law Society a broad discretion to regulate the legal profession on the basis of a number of policy considerations related to the public interest. [read post]
9 Jun 2018, 6:10 am by The Law Office of Philip D. Cave
“of late, an important shift has occurred in the views of state and lower federal courts, which have increasingly found fault with “new-generation” SORN laws, which in many respects are more expansive and onerous than those condoned by the” Supreme Court in Smith v. [read post]
30 May 2018, 4:00 am by Ryan Scoville
” As readers know, it’s difficult for the executive to prevail in traditional Category 3 cases, but Zivotofsky v. [read post]
25 May 2018, 10:26 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The allegations also state causes of action for retaliation (see Fletcher v Dakota, Inc., 99 AD3d 43, 51-52, 948 N.Y.S.2d 263 [1st Dept 2012]).With the exception of Dr. [read post]
18 May 2018, 2:45 am by NCC Staff
Sandford, the 1857 ruling that upheld slavery even in the free states, and Plessy v. [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 10:35 am by Public Employment Law Press
  A defect in the verification of the copy of a pleading served upon a party is insufficient to bar filing of a pleading, provided that the original pleading submitted to the Department for filing includes a proper verification (Appeal of K.M. and T.M., 57 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 17,095, pet. to rev dsmd sub nom Carthage UFSD v. [read post]
11 Feb 2018, 4:57 pm by INFORRM
On 30 January 2018 the Court of Appeal gave the claimant permission to appeal in the case of Butt v Secretary of State for Home Department. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 12:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
[Smith v Hager, 185 A.D.2d 612]Demoting an employee for sleeping on duty on two occasions, although a hearing officer found the employee’s supervisor had “condoned” such conduct and the hearing officer had recommended a suspension without pay for three weeks. [read post]