Search for: "State v. Court of Appeals, Division I"
Results 481 - 500
of 4,047
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2016, 8:25 am
”) State v. [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" Noting that the statute provides that "[a]mounts payable under this subdivision shall be determined by the Commissioner of Education" and, citing citing Matter of Davis v Mills, 98 NY2d 120, the Appellate Division further explained that "[i]t is for the Commissioner [of Education] in the first instance, and not for the courts, to establish and apply criteria" regarding the propriety and administration of recoupment of alleged funding… [read post]
12 Jul 2021, 4:00 am
" Noting that the statute provides that "[a]mounts payable under this subdivision shall be determined by the Commissioner of Education" and, citing citing Matter of Davis v Mills, 98 NY2d 120, the Appellate Division further explained that "[i]t is for the Commissioner [of Education] in the first instance, and not for the courts, to establish and apply criteria" regarding the propriety and administration of recoupment of alleged funding… [read post]
13 Jan 2023, 2:40 am
At the beginning of this week, I reported on the Mannheim Regional Court's confirmation of the dismissal of one Nokia v. [read post]
18 Apr 2014, 1:31 pm
In Imburgia v. [read post]
5 Feb 2021, 10:49 am
That case, NCAA v. [read post]
28 Jan 2022, 7:03 am
John Rewwer, et al. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 9:47 am
Jenack Estate Appraisers and Auctioneers, Inc. v. [read post]
27 Apr 2017, 8:54 am
April 25, 2017), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California has joined the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and other courts in holding that athletes are not employees entitled to minimum wage and overtime time pay. [read post]
17 Aug 2010, 2:07 pm
Hernandez, the California Court of Appeal (First Appellate District, Division Five) expressly disagreed with Nicholson v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 6:19 am
I'm still trying to catch up after two weeks of depositions out of state. [read post]
10 Aug 2012, 5:47 am
District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, we’ve been summarizing the legal issues raised in Lance Armstrong’s Amended Complaint and USADA and Tygart’s responses in their motion to dismiss. [read post]
15 Aug 2014, 5:19 am
The division of some of those properties is at issue on appeal. . . . [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 5:47 pm
Clark raises one issue on appeal, which we restate as: Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying his petition in light of our supreme court's decision in Lambert v. [read post]
4 Sep 2008, 4:45 am
In the appeal that followed the Appellate Division indicated that the basic issue concerned "What constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy? [read post]
20 May 2009, 1:29 pm
In People v. [read post]
6 Aug 2019, 4:00 am
§18 provides for the defense and indemnification of officers and employees of public entities which are defined as "(i) a county, city, town, village or any other political subdivision or civil division of the state, (ii) a school district, board of cooperative educational services, or any other governmental entity or combination or association of governmental entities operating a public school, college, community college or university, (iii) a public improvement… [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, the Appellate Division explained that "[I]t is the Comptroller's duty to determine retirement service credits and his determination will be upheld by this Court if rational and supported by substantial evidence" and it is the claimant's burden to show that he or she is entitled to additional retirement member service credit.According to… [read post]
20 Mar 2019, 4:00 am
Citing Matter of DeLuca v New York State & Local Employees' Retirement Sys., 48 AD3d 876, the Appellate Division explained that "[I]t is the Comptroller's duty to determine retirement service credits and his determination will be upheld by this Court if rational and supported by substantial evidence" and it is the claimant's burden to show that he or she is entitled to additional retirement member service credit.According to… [read post]
15 Mar 2007, 5:52 pm
The Michigan Court of Appeals decided an interesting case on February 27, 2007. [read post]
