Search for: "Jones v. York" Results 281 - 300 of 1,548
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 Apr 2011, 2:32 am
Disclosure of a public agency’s "policies, procedures, rules and regulations”Sabilia v State of New York, 14 Misc.3d 1228(A) Peter Sabilia and his wife, Stephanie, sued the State of New York after Peter was injured as a result of his being run over by a State motor vehicle sunbathing on the beach at Jones Beach State Park. [read post]
14 Oct 2022, 4:58 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The plaintiff commenced this action by filing a summons with notice on June 2, 2004 (see CPLR 304(a); Jones v Bill, 10 NY3d 550, 554; LeBlanc v Skinner, 103 AD3d 202, 208). [read post]
30 Mar 2010, 6:45 am by Jay Willis
Tony Mauro of the BLT and Ashby Jones of the WSJ Law Blog both previewed Monday’s oral argument in Morrison v. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 5:00 am
McElveen, of Jones Day, contributed this guest post, for which we thank him. [read post]
3 Nov 2009, 8:41 pm
This is the question that preoccupied Justice Kennedy in yesterday's oral argument in Jones v. [read post]
31 Aug 2010, 7:25 am by Anna Christensen
Chicago and Cooper Industries v. [read post]
23 Feb 2011, 6:41 am by Adam Chandler
Irby and City of New York v. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 2:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Lefkowitz, the text of the decision, DiBattista v County of Westchester,* is set out below:  DiBattista v County of Westchester Decided on July 29, 2008 Supreme Court, Westchester County Carmine DiBattista, ANTHYONY EGIZIACO, KATHERINE JONES, ANTHONY P. [read post]
21 Jul 2021, 2:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Lefkowitz, the text of the decision, DiBattista v County of Westchester,* is set out below:  DiBattista v County of Westchester Decided on July 29, 2008 Supreme Court, Westchester County Carmine DiBattista, ANTHYONY EGIZIACO, KATHERINE JONES, ANTHONY P. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 5:02 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Citing People v Weaver (12 NY3d 433) and United States v Jones (132 S Ct 945}, the Court of Appeals ruled that the State agency's action was a search within the meaning of the State and Federal Constitutions and “did not require a warrant” but “on the facts of this case such surveillance was  unreasonable”The decision TLC decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_01735.htmThe Cunningham… [read post]