Search for: "*long v. Murphy"
Results 301 - 320
of 685
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Dec 2006, 6:53 pm
Murphy v. [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 6:15 am
Couden v. [read post]
3 Jun 2010, 7:55 pm
” The Appellate Division ruled that the individual was entitled to such a hearing [Murphy v City of New York, 35 AD3d 319].Further, on the issue of “public disclosure,” courts have ruled that the internal disclosure of allegedly stigmatizing reasons for the discharge or demotion of an employee to agency administrators “having a right to know” does not constitute a public disclosure of such information and thus a name-clearing hearing" was not… [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 6:00 am
Georgia declared implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in Chisholm v. [read post]
4 Apr 2019, 1:30 pm
Rees and Clossip v. [read post]
21 Oct 2015, 4:11 am
`[C]ontent-based restrictions on speech have been permitted, as a general matter, only when confined to the few “historic and traditional categories [of expression] long familiar to the bar”’ U.S. v. [read post]
15 Jan 2018, 9:33 am
The case is Deere & Co. v. [read post]
25 Sep 2018, 7:06 pm
United States, which interpreted the Fourth Amendment to impose certain limits on the warrantless collection of the historical cell phone location records of a criminal suspect; (3) Murphy v. [read post]
21 Mar 2017, 11:45 pm
| Book review: "Brandfather: John Murphy, The Man Who Invented Branding" | IP Summit 2016 (Second Part) | Around the IP Blogs! [read post]
12 Nov 2014, 9:55 pm
(See Luzano v. [read post]
26 Jul 2013, 2:13 pm
Genesco Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2021, 7:47 pm
Although courts have noted in Bruff-Murphy v. [read post]
15 Jul 2009, 3:49 am
The case was the subject of a 1992 book, Fatal Subtraction: The Inside Story of Buchwald v. [read post]
15 Jul 2010, 3:27 am
” However, he noted, courts have recognized an exception to this general proposition “where a specific statutory provision authorizes a long-term contractual arrangement,” citing Murphy v Erie County, 28 NY2d 80.Holding that Sections 2507(1) and 2507(3) constituted such statutory provisions, the Commissioner ruled that each time a school board enters into a multi-year “it necessarily binds successor boards. [read post]
3 Dec 2015, 1:26 pm
’” Id. at 9–10, citing Gilmer v. [read post]
23 Jan 2009, 7:41 am
It's plausible to argue (and I'm confident this is actually right) that States are permitted to disenfranchise certain sections of the population -- including, perhaps, "new" types of felonies -- without violating the Fourteenth Amendment but still have the consequence of reduced electoral votes.But that thought, for whatever it's worth, requires far too long to articulate. [read post]
31 Aug 2023, 8:25 pm
Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Sackett v. [read post]
27 Sep 2024, 10:21 am
This long blog post rounds up five defense losses, riddled with bad judicial errors. [read post]
28 Nov 2018, 4:06 am
Today the justices will hear oral argument in Timbs v. [read post]
9 Dec 2011, 10:26 am
When Chief Justice Rehnquist authored South Dakota v. [read post]
