Search for: "Herring v. State"
Results 3401 - 3420
of 58,170
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Feb 2010, 4:15 am
Distinguishing between an individual’s “domicile” and his or her “residence” for the purpose of meeting a “residence requirement” for employmentMatter of Ball v City of Syracuse, 2010 NY Slip Op 01037, decided on February 11, 2010, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentThe Syracuse City Charter provides that employees "shall be at the time of their appointment and continue to be during their continuance in the employment of the city,… [read post]
8 Jun 2012, 4:55 am
(See, e.g., United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2012, 7:07 am
In Vickery v. [read post]
2 Dec 2011, 7:54 am
In Williams v. [read post]
10 Mar 2008, 10:39 am
BAKER V. [read post]
2 Mar 2021, 7:25 pm
Samsung and FTC v. [read post]
2 Feb 2012, 5:10 pm
She knew that her friend owned an Akita dog which had been given to her by her land lord’s sister when it was just a puppy. [read post]
14 Mar 2009, 1:05 pm
Olson v. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 8:00 am
Barbuto v. [read post]
23 Jul 2017, 8:00 am
Barbuto v. [read post]
10 Dec 2008, 8:44 pm
Smith, a lawyer in the state attorney general's office, was vigorous in her defense of the prosecutors' conduct. [read post]
7 Aug 2023, 5:57 am
From Doe 107 v. [read post]
20 Mar 2009, 5:01 am
And, based on the CCA opinion in Griffith v. [read post]
3 Jan 2018, 5:10 am
Here's a quick summary of the case, from the intermediate appellate court decision: [E]ach plaintiff alleges that defendants violated her right to privacy under New York Civil Rights Law § 51 by misappropriating her likeness for use in the video game "Grand Theft Auto V. [read post]
23 Aug 2008, 11:56 am
He therefore awarded the wife the entire proceeds of sale, in respect of her costs and by way of a lump sum payment. [read post]
24 Jul 2012, 9:31 pm
Interestingly, in its introduction, the Court stated: "We hold the provision is unconscionable and unenforceable under Armendariz v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 12:41 pm
See United States v. [read post]
20 May 2010, 4:12 pm
This distressed her, because her Muslim faith prohibits her from appearing in a relative state of undress or from appearing without a head scarf before unrelated males. [read post]
21 Jun 2017, 5:31 am
The principle of a MIR per se is not objectionable as the Court states (see Konstantinov v Netherlands cited at para. 84) but the impact of the new threshold is surely a relevant consideration in considering compatibility. [read post]
29 Jan 2013, 9:01 pm
Blueford v. [read post]
