Search for: "STATE v FIELD"
Results 3661 - 3680
of 12,939
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Nov 2022, 10:57 am
See State v. [read post]
24 Jun 2015, 2:30 am
Following publication of the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, a public comment in opposition to the proposed rule amendment, dated June 30, 2014, was received from the New York State Public Employees Federation, AFL-CIO, (PEF).Article V, section 6 of the State Constitution requires that appointments in the classified service of the State shall be “made according to merit and fitness, to be ascertained, as far as practicable, by examination which, as far as… [read post]
24 May 2024, 7:38 am
See Smith v. [read post]
20 Sep 2021, 4:20 pm
(See Peck v. [read post]
4 Oct 2018, 12:58 pm
In United States v. [read post]
21 Jan 2010, 7:47 am
" So the case of State v. [read post]
29 Jan 2023, 4:31 am
This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field. [read post]
16 Jul 2017, 4:22 pm
The state court granted the TRO on May 4, 2015. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 7:48 pm
Bennett and McComish v. [read post]
8 Jul 2024, 10:07 am
In May, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) redefined the test for nonobviousness [LKQ Corp. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2007, 2:27 pm
TVA v. [read post]
30 Apr 2012, 1:51 am
Cooper and Missouri v. [read post]
23 Jan 2017, 4:12 am
” Yesterday was the 43rd anniversary of Roe v. [read post]
29 Aug 2022, 11:01 am
United States, No. 21-1702; and M6-VETS, LLC v. [read post]
25 Jun 2008, 3:30 pm
This morning the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in the long-running Exxon-Valdez case, Exxon Shipping Company v. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 11:27 am
DOR, Appeal No. 2015AP2019, DWD v. [read post]
3 Feb 2016, 12:04 pm
” The CFPB states that such an institution “must consider the appropriate approach to each type of furnishing in its policies and procedures in order to comply with Regulation V. [read post]
4 May 2018, 6:55 am
Byram v. [read post]
4 May 2018, 6:55 am
Byram v. [read post]
24 Mar 2022, 12:27 pm
For some related though different thoughts on the subject by Justice Scalia, see his concurrence in Sable Communications v. [read post]
