Search for: "May v. State" Results 3801 - 3820 of 119,555
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Sep 2018, 6:04 am by Jorge Miranda
(Part V: The Mexican Handshake) appeared first on Regulating for Globalization. [read post]
29 Jan 2019, 1:00 am by DONALD SCARINCI
The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment According to the majority, the ordinance was unconstitutional because a State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. [read post]
19 Jul 2011, 4:15 am
Public employer may be liable for damages suffered as a result of negligent supervision and negligent retention of its employees Gray v Schenectady City School Dist., 2011 NY Slip Op 05925, Appellate Division, Third Department One of the defendant in this action, Steven Raucci, was employed by the Schenectady City School District) as its director of facilities. [read post]
6 May 2024, 4:43 am by INFORRM
As mentioned above, on 2 May 2024, there was a statement in open court in Percival v Belfield QB-2022-000902. [read post]
11 May 2014, 7:42 pm by INFORRM
Cartus Corporation v Siddell, 8 May 2014 (Sir David Eady) SPA v TAS, 8 May 2014 (Tugendhat J). [read post]
20 Aug 2013, 2:08 am by rhapsodyinbooks
As you know by now, in the opinion issued in Shelby County v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 5:00 am by Holly Hayes
  However, due to the questionable holding of the United States Supreme Court in Prima Paint Corp. v. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:45 pm by Embassy Law
May mistreated domestic personnel of foreign diplomats in the United States sue the foreign sending state in a United States court? [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:45 pm
May mistreated domestic personnel of foreign diplomats in the United States sue the foreign sending state in a United States court? [read post]
14 May 2017, 4:05 pm by INFORRM
On 12 May 2017 Warby J heard an application in the case of Suresh v Samad & ors. [read post]
19 Aug 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
”In Matter of D'Agostino v DiNapoli, 24 Misc 3d 1090, one of the relatively few State court decisions that consider the extent of the protections provided by Article V, §7 of New York State Constitution's, the court said that Article V, §7 “merely provides that retirement system benefits are contractual in nature and may not be impaired or diminished by state action. [read post]