Search for: "State v. Court of Appeals, Division I"
Results 3761 - 3780
of 4,097
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2008, 7:16 pm
The argument is illogical on its face, but has been accepted by quite a few state courts, including -- to the utter shame ofmy home state -- the abysmally reasoned decision by the New York Court of Appeals from two years ago. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 8:17 am
This Court has no authority to overturn a determination of the Appellate Division. [read post]
9 Dec 2008, 12:12 am
Courts of Appeals highlights the case of United States v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 12:00 pm
That's why I'm excited to write about a ruling last month by the Appellate Division, Second department in Manitaras v. [read post]
8 Dec 2008, 2:48 am
There are many dubious theories being used by so-called experts in the family division and court reporters. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 2:00 pm
Philip Morris appealed, and for the third time, the high court took the case. [read post]
4 Dec 2008, 9:34 am
Moreover, while the Court of Appeals - the State's highest court - held in Hernandez v. [read post]
3 Dec 2008, 12:15 pm
Employee's ADA claim for damages survives promotion to a higher grade positionMatter of Jochelman v New York State Banking Dept., 2008 NY Slip Op 09267, decided on November 25, 2008, Appellate Division, First Department After the New York State Banking Department denied Irving Jochelman a promotion to the position of Principal Bank Examiner I, Jochelman sued Supreme Court granted Banking's motion to dismiss his petition because… [read post]
28 Nov 2008, 2:39 pm
Continental appealed. [read post]
25 Nov 2008, 12:20 pm
"There as some exceptions to this general rule, however.PERB, relying on the Court of Appeals ruling in Freudenthal v. [read post]
22 Nov 2008, 4:10 pm
1Filed 11/21/08CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATIONIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAFIRST APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION FIVEMICHAEL MORALES et al. [read post]
18 Nov 2008, 5:26 pm
On November 17, 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the case of Borough v. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 6:39 pm
I, section 6, cl. 1. [read post]
17 Nov 2008, 12:00 pm
In Sobol v. [read post]
15 Nov 2008, 5:12 pm
As far as I can tell, the rule in Arizona can be traced back to the 1954 Supreme Court of Arizona case State v. [read post]
11 Nov 2008, 3:14 pm
"Finally, in 2008, the 2nd Circuit reached a mixed result on the question in Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund v. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 6:55 pm
Second, Chambers argued that because the Supreme Court recently acknowledged in James v. [read post]
7 Nov 2008, 3:25 pm
Ed. 2d 49 (2000), and the NJ Supreme Court in Moriarty v. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 11:02 am
The Court of Appeals affirmed. [read post]
3 Nov 2008, 9:31 am
But it appears to have stalled.Meanwhile, the dynamic duo are back with a new proposal: Restore a good deal of the Supreme Court's mandatory appellate jurisdiction, but instead of using automatic rights of appeal (as pre-1988), strip the Justices of the power to decide what cases to hear and transfer that power to a new division of the Supreme Court made up of experienced federal appeals court judges. [read post]
