Search for: "FELTS v. STATE" Results 461 - 480 of 5,847
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 May 2009, 12:16 pm
Parade moved to dismiss the claim on grounds that New York court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, since the termination did not occur in New York City or New York State citing Shah v. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 7:30 am by Venkat Balasubramani
CareFlite Accessing an Employee’s Facebook Posts by “Shoulder Surfing” a Coworker’s Page States Privacy Claim — Ehling v. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 7:37 pm by Kenneth Vercammen Esq. Edison
That the primary thrust of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-4(c) is not to interdict speech, but rather conduct, is reinforced in State v. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 5:00 am by zshapiro
The court felt that the Third Circuit position would would discourage states from discretionary laws and the system would be harmed as a result. [read post]
2 Oct 2009, 12:18 pm by Kevin Sheerin
Matter of AJK CafE, Inc. v New York State Liquor Authority In this Article 78 proceeding, Petitioner appealed a determination of the New York State Liquor Authority finding him in violation of 9 NYCRR 48.3 due to employment of an unlicensed security guard. [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
The felt need for constitutional theory to maintain connections with constitutional practice made possible the outsized influence of Justice Scalia. [read post]
4 Feb 2024, 5:57 pm by Bruce Ackerman
However, when convinced of former error, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 3:29 pm
The deputy also felt Chadwick kicking the deputy several times in the leg. [read post]
20 Jul 2011, 12:07 am by INFORRM
Against this background, the judge felt that it would be very difficult to draw hard and fast boundaries between ‘zones’ – whether business or familial in nature. [read post]
16 Jan 2011, 7:39 am by Adam Baker
Martel Building Ltd. v Canada, [1997] 129 FTR 249 (FCTD), revd [1998] 163 DLR (4th) 504 (FCA), leave to appeal refused, 2000 SCC 60, [2000] 2 SCR 860, online: LexUM http://scc.lexum.org/en/2000/2000scc60/2000scc60.html Facts Note: This case deals with the possibility of a tort action in negligence for breach of a duty of care during negotiation of a contract (specifically during the solicitation and evaluation of tendered bids). [read post]