Search for: "U. S. v. Marks" Results 361 - 380 of 1,344
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Jun 2013, 9:35 am by Max Mallory
The Associated Press also has coverage of today’s decision in Maracich v. [read post]
16 May 2022, 3:05 pm by Josh Blackman
These barbs seldom leave a mark but often miss the mark. [read post]
20 Oct 2008, 11:10 am
Appealing an Education Law Section 3020-a arbitration awardMatter of Tarasow v NYC Dept. of Educ., 2008 NY Slip Op 52066(U), Decided on October 6, 2008, Supreme Court, New York County, Feinman, J., [This opinion will not be published in the printed the Official Reports.]Helen Tarasow, a tenured a guidance counselor employed by the New York City Department [DOE], was ordered removed from her school and subsequently disciplinary charges were filed against her alleging [1] that… [read post]
30 Jun 2023, 7:07 am
S., at 335–336 (internal quotation marks omitted).So is "critical mass" something no one believes in anymore? [read post]
19 Jul 2012, 4:06 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
  Brach v Levine    2012 NY Slip Op 51312(U)   Decided on July 16, 2012   Supreme Court, Kings County   Battaglia, J. is an example. [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
[FN1] It is well settled that, "[u]nder FOIL, agency records are presumptively available for public inspection" (Matter of Empire Ch. of Associated Bldrs. and Contractors, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Transportation, ___ AD3d ___, ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 06852, *1 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
[FN1] It is well settled that, "[u]nder FOIL, agency records are presumptively available for public inspection" (Matter of Empire Ch. of Associated Bldrs. and Contractors, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Transportation, ___ AD3d ___, ___, 2022 NY Slip Op 06852, *1 [3d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). [read post]
25 Jan 2010, 9:10 pm
Here is the Court's per curiam Briscoe opinion from January 25, 2010: "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 07-11191 MARK A. [read post]
1 Jun 2011, 11:14 am by Michael M. O'Hear
S. 167, 174 (2001) (normally we must give effect “to every clause and word of a statute” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ratzlaf v. [read post]
30 May 2011, 2:08 pm by Michael O'Hear
S. 167, 174 (2001) (normally we must give effect “to every clause and word of a statute” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Ratzlaf v. [read post]