Search for: "Bodie v Bodie" Results 3401 - 3420 of 21,337
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Mar 2014, 2:15 pm
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court today decided the case of Commonwealth v. [read post]
20 Jul 2023, 7:30 pm by Jacob Katz Cogan
Kebebew, Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v Bolivia): Is the International Court of Justice falling short? [read post]
12 Apr 2016, 4:15 am by The Public Employment Law Press
”The Appellate Division, noting that Civil Service Law §75 governed the disciplinary proceeding at issue in this case, explained that §75 requires that "[t]he hearing upon such charges shall be held by the officer or body having the power to remove the person against whom such charges are preferred, or by a deputy or other person designated by such officer or body in writing for that purpose. [read post]
20 Nov 2014, 2:23 am
For example, the Supreme Court of Arizona said last April in the case of State ex rel Montgomery v. [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 11:00 pm
Among other things, he incurred third-degree burns to over a third of his body with “degloving injuries to his hands and a corneal abrasion to his right eye. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 4:42 pm by Abbott & Kindermann
Cucchi In his Executive Order, President Trump directs the EPA and USACE to clarify the 2015 Waters of the United States (“WOTUS”) Rule and in doing so, to take into consideration Justice Scalia’s 2006 Supreme Court opinion in Rapanos v. [read post]
18 Apr 2017, 1:00 pm by The Public Employment Law Press
Failing to designate the individual to conduct a disciplinary hearing pursuant to §75 of the Civil Service Law in writing is a fatal jurisdictional error Hopton v Ponte, 2017 NY Slip Op 02649, Appellate Division, Second DepartmentNew York City Correction Officer [Petitioner] was found guilty of violating certain Department of Correction rules and was terminated from her position. [read post]
26 Feb 2022, 5:00 pm by Jason Mazzone
A draft of the Amars' article is here and below (with the Amars' permission) is a taste of their powerful analysis.The Court’s rulings in Bush v. [read post]