Search for: "Crotty v. Crotty"
Results 461 - 480
of 487
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
19 Mar 2012, 4:15 am
In People v. [read post]
24 Mar 2012, 3:51 am
That case is People v. [read post]
23 Nov 2016, 3:33 am
In addition, the Sixth Circuit will be hearing the EEOC’s appeal of the lower court decision in EEOC v. [read post]
28 Aug 2014, 8:44 am
In People v. [read post]
31 Dec 2011, 4:47 pm
The Court of Appeals of New York (New York State's top court) took up this exact legal question in People v. [read post]
23 Dec 2011, 3:32 pm
The case, People v. [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 4:02 am
In People v. [read post]
4 Mar 2012, 1:30 pm
In People v. [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 6:49 am
The employee’s sexual orientation discrimination claims also survived, even though she did not tell the supervisor who decided to fire her that she was “gay” or “lesbian,” because a jury could conclude that her supervisor inferred she was a lesbian based on her comments that she had an “alternative lifestyle” and did not “date men” (Benussi v UBS Financial Services, Inc, February 13, 2014, Crotty, P). [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 5:28 am
Founded by two former Manhattan prosecutors, the New York criminal lawyers at Crotty Saland PC represent the accused throughout the New York City region. [read post]
8 Jun 2018, 6:01 am
American Sugar Holdings, Inc., June 5, 2018, Crotty, P.). [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 8:32 pm
As luck would have it, New York's highest court considered this very question in People v. [read post]
25 Sep 2015, 4:28 am
I plan to provide updates as the trial goes along because it should be more interesting than a barrel of Marchuk v. [read post]
11 Jan 2012, 3:33 am
A recent case in the Kings (Brooklyn) County Criminal Court, People v. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 4:47 am
In The People v. [read post]
15 Sep 2011, 4:00 am
In Bennis v. [read post]
3 Oct 2014, 4:40 am
Last year, I blogged about EEOC v. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 4:54 am
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Seff v. [read post]
11 Sep 2015, 3:46 am
In the case of Castelluccio v. [read post]
2 Oct 2023, 4:22 am
In many if not most of these cases, the pre-amendment provision retains at least some of the protections found in Section 417 (b)’s default rule against adverse impact on the non-consenting members, as illustrated in a case decided earlier this year called Gallagher v Crotty. [read post]
