Search for: "Free v. State"
Results 421 - 440
of 39,594
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 May 2024, 6:00 am
Assn., 63 NY2d 846, 848 [1984]; see Falzone, 15 NY3d at 534-535; Board of Educ. of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School Dist. v Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, 48 NY2d 812, 813 [1979]; see generally 20 Richard A. [read post]
10 May 2024, 4:34 am
” People v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 9:32 am
State v. [read post]
9 May 2024, 9:14 am
Contact us for a free consultation online or at 630-333-0333. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
“[L]ocal school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained [there]in …” (Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. [read post]
9 May 2024, 7:00 am
“[L]ocal school boards may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained [there]in …” (Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. [read post]
8 May 2024, 12:47 pm
Contact us for a free consultation online or at 630-333-0333. [read post]
8 May 2024, 7:25 am
In Raytheon Co. v. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
[*2]The City actors are the Mayor of the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education, and its Chancellor (collectively the City).Plaintiffs challenge State and City policies that plaintiffs claim deny Black and Latinx [FN3] students their state constitutional right to a "sound basic education" under article XI § 1 (Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v Nyquist, 57 NY2d 27, 48 [1982], appeal… [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am
[*2]The City actors are the Mayor of the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education, and its Chancellor (collectively the City).Plaintiffs challenge State and City policies that plaintiffs claim deny Black and Latinx [FN3] students their state constitutional right to a "sound basic education" under article XI § 1 (Board of Educ., Levittown Union Free School Dist. v Nyquist, 57 NY2d 27, 48 [1982], appeal… [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:05 am
In Yellowhammer Fund v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:47 pm
Almost 30 years ago, SCOTUS issued its opinion in United States v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 2:19 pm
" Paul v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm
This flawed scope suggests no direct link between the law’s restrictions and the stated security concerns, weakening its justification under strict scrutiny. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm
This flawed scope suggests no direct link between the law’s restrictions and the stated security concerns, weakening its justification under strict scrutiny. [read post]
7 May 2024, 12:30 pm
Bissonnette v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 10:47 am
Machinists v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:31 am
This is recognized in the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM) at 9 FAM § 402.1-3 , which states that an “applicant desiring to come to the United States for one principal purpose, and one or more incidental purposes, must be classified in accordance with the principal purpose. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:43 am
Source: USPTO Rothschild moved to dismiss the complaint under the Second Circuit’s Rogers v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 7:42 am
Bell v. [read post]
