Search for: "Doe v. Baker" Results 281 - 300 of 1,707
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
3 Jan 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
**Other decision addressing "recusal" include the following:● A board member’s involvement in the disciplinary process does not automatically require recusal of that individual [Birch v County of Madison, 123 AD3d 1324]● Board members who reviewed the recommendations of the Hearing Officer and acted on the charges "were not so personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process so as to compel the conclusion that they could not fairly… [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
**Other decision addressing "recusal" include the following:● A board member’s involvement in the disciplinary process does not automatically require recusal of that individual [Birch v County of Madison, 123 AD3d 1324]● Board members who reviewed the recommendations of the Hearing Officer and acted on the charges "were not so personally or extensively involved in the disciplinary process so as to compel the conclusion that they could not fairly… [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 8:12 pm by Zachary Spilman
In my preview of Tuesday’s oral argument at CAAF in United States v. [read post]
20 May 2014, 7:15 pm by Richard M. Re
  Consider:  "Candor of this type defies common sense and does not exactly inspire confidence! [read post]
26 Apr 2007, 6:40 am
  I have no idea if V&E still does this or if any other firms followed suit, but it just seemed unsavory to me, although sometimes I myself wanted to scream in the halls, "Has anyone noticed how many hours I billed this month? [read post]
14 Jun 2020, 12:26 pm by Marty Lederman
“Bill” Priestap, Sarah Raskin, Steve Ricchetti, Susan Rice, Rod Rosenstein, Gabriel Sanz-Rexach, Nathan Sheets, Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, Glenn Simpson, Steve Somma, Peter Strzok, Michael Sussman, Adam Szubin, Jonathan Winer, Christopher Wray, and Sally Yates.According to both President Trump (in his personal capacity) and the Solicitor General of the United States, this Judiciary Committee investigation is unconstitutional, and therefore recipients of the subpoenas need not comply… [read post]