Search for: "State v. Gray" Results 461 - 480 of 1,841
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Jan 2009, 7:44 am
Chief Justice Gray dissented without an opinion. [read post]
13 Jun 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
Injury suffered on the way to work not typically viewed as “arising out of and in the course of employment” Trotman v New York State Cts., 2014 NY Slip Op 03002, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentA senior court officer [Officer] was injured shortly before the beginning of his work shift when he slipped and fell on ice. [read post]
30 Mar 2023, 10:58 am by Jeffrey Bellin
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan also seemed sympathetic, indicating that the case was similar to the court’s 1998 decision in Gray v. [read post]
27 Oct 2022, 5:18 pm by Jacob Katz Cogan
Venezuela) Sherzod Shadikhodjaev, United States—Safeguard Measure on Imports of Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Products Michelle Foster, D.Z. v. [read post]
11 Feb 2020, 7:00 am by Adam White
Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State. [read post]
18 Oct 2008, 7:30 pm
Moreover, as individuals move from city to city and state to state, they leave a trail of partial medical records with various providers, insurers, and others. [read post]
1 Nov 2011, 2:04 pm by Eugene Volokh
(Eugene Volokh) That’s what seems to be the holding of Gilbert v. 7355 South Shore Condominium Ass’n & Shelley Norton (Chi. [read post]
6 Jan 2015, 4:16 pm
Then it continued for approximately two miles in the eastbound lane of oncoming traffic, eventually striking a gray or silver passenger car. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 8:27 pm by Adam White
White is counsel with Boyden Gray & Associates, and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute. [read post]
9 Jun 2008, 1:18 am
The Federal 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decided last week to reverse and remand the Houston district court's decision to throw out the case Fisher v. [read post]
4 Jun 2011, 9:44 am by Brian Shiffrin
Since the Court of Appeals is the highest court in the state and its holdings as to state law are binding on lower courts, one would have thought that the Appellate Divisions would refrain from upholding the denial of suppression motions on the ground that standing had not been established when no such claim had been raised by the People in response to the motion. [read post]