Search for: "Park v. State" Results 4121 - 4140 of 11,110
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Nov 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
However, said the court, citing  Matter of Park v DiNapoli, 123 AD3d 1392; Matter of Walters v DiNapoli, 82 AD3d 1487; and Matter of Rivera v DiNapoli, 78 AD3d 1295, "the issue distills to whether the Retirement System successfully rebutted the heart presumption, which, in turn, required the Retirement System to demonstrate -- through expert medical proof -- that Petitioner's cardiac condition was caused by risk factors other than his… [read post]
14 Nov 2015, 6:56 am
" Here, the payment plaintiff received from the fire company's insurer was for bodily injury damages, and thus the amount of SUM benefits available to plaintiff was properly reduced by that amount (see Weiss v Tri-State Consumer Ins. [read post]
29 Nov 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
However, said the court, citing  Matter of Park v DiNapoli, 123 AD3d 1392; Matter of Walters v DiNapoli, 82 AD3d 1487; and Matter of Rivera v DiNapoli, 78 AD3d 1295, "the issue distills to whether the Retirement System successfully rebutted the heart presumption, which, in turn, required the Retirement System to demonstrate -- through expert medical proof -- that Petitioner's cardiac condition was caused by risk factors other than his… [read post]
6 Feb 2023, 4:52 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co., Inc., 67 NY2d 138, 141; Follors v TI Ozone Park Stor., LLC, 209 AD3d 843). [read post]
8 Jun 2011, 11:22 am by PaulKostro
One Washington Park Urban Renewal Associates, 154 N.J. 437, 456-57 (1998); see also, Notte v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 7:22 am by Kelly Shivery
The Osprey is manufactured at Boeing’s manufacturing facility in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania. [read post]
9 Aug 2018, 6:57 am by Matthew L.M. Fletcher
Tahsuda (Indian Child Welfare Act – Constitutionality)State of California v. [read post]
11 Aug 2019, 8:50 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
” Canadian courts bolstered this position by the Chancery Court decision in Parke v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 8:59 am by Kevin Goldberg
  That requirement was inserted into the Exemption 4 equation via a 1974 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the case of National Parks & Conservation Assn v. [read post]