Search for: "Glass v State"
Results 301 - 320
of 1,799
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 May 2020, 8:02 am
Merricks v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 6:02 am
Katz, and Sabastian V. [read post]
16 Apr 2020, 8:08 am
Cotto v. [read post]
9 Apr 2020, 8:42 am
Cotto v. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 6:03 am
Posted by David Katz and Sabastian V. [read post]
3 Apr 2020, 12:00 am
Part V addresses three arguments against universal mask wearing. [read post]
28 Mar 2020, 8:08 pm
In People v. [read post]
27 Mar 2020, 6:01 am
Emmerich, and Sabastian V. [read post]
20 Mar 2020, 6:17 am
Posted by Ruth V. [read post]
19 Mar 2020, 5:35 pm
In Loan v. [read post]
17 Mar 2020, 1:32 pm
The U.S. [read post]
13 Mar 2020, 5:00 am
See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19–21. [read post]
12 Mar 2020, 9:32 pm
’ Welsh v. [read post]
11 Mar 2020, 8:26 pm
Auth. v State Div. of Human Rights, 78 NY2d 207, 216-217 [1991]; Batavia Lodge No. 196, Loyal Order of Moose v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 35 NY2d 143, 147 [1974]).The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2020/2020_01252.htm [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 11:40 am
In the case at hand, State v. [read post]
6 Mar 2020, 6:17 am
Silk, Sabastian V. [read post]
5 Mar 2020, 12:58 am
The United Kingdom Court of Appeal in Pilkington v CGU [2004] held that the risk of future damage doesn’t mean that glass panes installed in the glass roof of the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo station were actually damaged (although they were prone to fracture). [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 4:00 pm
While OCA may have a preference for those with a minimal amount of hearing acuity might be a bona fide occupational qualification, the court opined that its preference for hearing acuity without the use of a hearing aid is not.Citing Matter of County of Erie v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 121 AD3d 1564, the Appellate Division noted that "Judicial review of an administrative penalty is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty ... constitutes an… [read post]
4 Mar 2020, 4:00 pm
While OCA may have a preference for those with a minimal amount of hearing acuity might be a bona fide occupational qualification, the court opined that its preference for hearing acuity without the use of a hearing aid is not.Citing Matter of County of Erie v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 121 AD3d 1564, the Appellate Division noted that "Judicial review of an administrative penalty is limited to whether the measure or mode of penalty ... constitutes an… [read post]
2 Mar 2020, 7:10 am
United States Railroad Retirement Board, 2/24/20: Fulton v. [read post]
