Search for: "State v. Lipski"
Results 21 - 40
of 45
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 May 2019, 5:00 am
The post Supreme Court Asked to Consider Age Discrimination Case appeared first on Lipsky Lowe LLP. [read post]
24 May 2019, 5:00 am
The DOL proposes a four-factor test (adopted from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Bonnette v. [read post]
22 Apr 2019, 2:00 am
In this case, Andryeyeva v. [read post]
9 Jun 2021, 9:12 am
The suit (EEOC v. [read post]
24 Feb 2021, 8:22 am
Religious Accommodations v. [read post]
13 Nov 2009, 7:37 pm
New London, of course, was the epicenter of the public use case that became Kelo v. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
Citing Matter of Lipsky v New York State Comptroller, 56 AD3d 1101, the court held that the Comptroller's determination that Petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of his assignment was "not supported by substantial evidence in this record and thus must be annulled. [read post]
8 Apr 2024, 6:00 am
Citing Matter of Lipsky v New York State Comptroller, 56 AD3d 1101, the court held that the Comptroller's determination that Petitioner was not permanently incapacitated from performing the duties of his assignment was "not supported by substantial evidence in this record and thus must be annulled. [read post]
5 Oct 2011, 7:05 am
In the case of Lipsky v. [read post]
30 Jul 2015, 2:05 am
United States. [read post]
19 Nov 2019, 6:58 am
’ In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579, 590 (Tex. 2015). [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 2:44 pm
For example, in West v. [read post]
4 Aug 2010, 10:46 am
. - Raymont, V., Salazar, A.M., Lipsky, R., Goldman, D., Tasick, G., Grafman, J.. [read post]
28 May 2015, 9:00 am
United States ex rel. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 8:55 am
STATE OF TEXAS v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 4:39 am
Loan Payment Administration LLC v. [read post]
5 Mar 2023, 6:30 am
Schwartz reviews the long line of cases beginning with Harlow v. [read post]
1 Oct 2011, 2:56 am
She stated that in February 2010 Ms. [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 2:29 pm
Its purpose is to avoid the possibility that a crime may be confessed when, in fact, no crime has been committed (People v Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 570, quoting People v Reade, 13 N.Y.2d 42; and People v Lytton, 257 N.Y. 310). [read post]
20 Dec 2016, 2:29 pm
Its purpose is to avoid the possibility that a crime may be confessed when, in fact, no crime has been committed (People v Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 570, quoting People v Reade, 13 N.Y.2d 42; and People v Lytton, 257 N.Y. 310). [read post]
