Search for: "Parks v. State" Results 281 - 300 of 10,081
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Apr 2022, 7:26 am by Daniel Habib
Apr. 26, 2022), the Circuit (Nardini, joined by Sack and Park), held that a state trial court’s erroneous denial of a defendant’s peremptory strike does not violate the federal Constitution under Rivera v. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 6:07 am by Jocelyn Hutton
Moreover, in Pioneer Aggregates (UK) Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1985] AC 132 the House of Lords held that there is no room for any principle of abandonment in planning law. [read post]
25 Jun 2013, 3:12 pm by Arthur F. Coon
Judging by all the recent articles and blog posts written about it, many commenters believe the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Taxpayers For Accountable School Bond Spending v. [read post]
22 Apr 2009, 3:04 am
Requiring a lifeguard applicant to take a swim test using a State issued "Speedo" swimsuit is not an act of unlawful discrimination because of ageMatter of Lester v New York State Off. of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation, 2009 NY Slip Op 01651, Decided on March 3, 2009, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentThe New York State Division of Human Rights dismissed Roy J. [read post]
3 Feb 2009, 9:13 am
At 1654, the Court-Martial Trial Practice blog observed, "The Commissioner for the Panel advises that the case is United States v. [read post]
28 Oct 2007, 7:33 pm
/NOTICE OF FILINGCOMES NOW the State of Florida, and files the following:1.Berry v. [read post]
6 May 2014, 1:47 pm by Glotzer & Sweat
Can a delivery truck driver be liable for negligent parking under the laws of the State of California? [read post]
27 Mar 2019, 4:37 pm by Daily Record Staff
The circuit court dismissed Whitaker’s lawsuit, finding that the administrative charge is authorized by state law. [read post]
21 Sep 2022, 10:04 pm by Kurt R. Karst
Wasserstein & JP Ellison —In a recent JAMA editorial (unfortunately behind a paywall), three authors called for increased use of the Park Responsible Corporate Officer doctrine, under which senior level officials at a company can be held liable under a strict liability theory even if they were not involved in, or even knew about, the alleged violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (United States v. [read post]