Search for: "State v. Risk"
Results 5141 - 5160
of 28,725
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Nov 2016, 5:13 am
The current UK ‘country guidance decisions’ for same-sex oriented men and lesbians from India (respectively), MD and AR and NH, are both relatively optimistic with regard to the prospects for same-sex oriented men and women to ‘reasonably’ relocate within India to escape risks of harm in their home areas; these findings depend to a significant degree upon the view that risks of harm predominantly arise from non-state actors (for example, family… [read post]
2 Nov 2016, 5:13 am
The current UK ‘country guidance decisions’ for same-sex oriented men and lesbians from India (respectively), MD and AR and NH, are both relatively optimistic with regard to the prospects for same-sex oriented men and women to ‘reasonably’ relocate within India to escape risks of harm in their home areas; these findings depend to a significant degree upon the view that risks of harm predominantly arise from non-state actors (for example, family… [read post]
20 Jan 2021, 9:32 am
OBS Co. v. [read post]
29 Jun 2022, 12:35 pm
Today's decision of the Montana Supreme Court in Bd. of Regents v. [read post]
11 Nov 2013, 10:00 am
With exquisite timing, the Court of Appeals lays it out for us.The case is United States v. [read post]
1 Feb 2019, 9:37 am
(“Cass”) and Drummond v. [read post]
5 Nov 2015, 7:15 am
In Rodriguez v. [read post]
24 Jul 2023, 1:49 pm
On Monday, July 17, 2023, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in the Adolf v. [read post]
27 Jun 2014, 12:59 pm
The California-based company was part of the Tamiz v Google Inc 2013 case in England and Wales. [read post]
21 Aug 2024, 6:00 am
Petitioner's application was denied by the New York State Retirement System [System] based on its finding that the incidents did not constitute accidents within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363.* Noting that an applicant accidental disability retirement benefits bares the burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and that the System's determination in this regard… [read post]
21 Aug 2024, 6:00 am
Petitioner's application was denied by the New York State Retirement System [System] based on its finding that the incidents did not constitute accidents within the meaning of Retirement and Social Security Law §363.* Noting that an applicant accidental disability retirement benefits bares the burden of establishing that his disability arose from an accident within the meaning of the Retirement and Social Security Law, and that the System's determination in this regard… [read post]
6 Aug 2012, 11:45 am
Llorence filed a lawsuit - Llorence v. [read post]
12 Apr 2012, 11:45 am
Llorence filed a lawsuit - Llorence v. [read post]
30 Nov 2017, 7:00 am
The 2001 case Eagle Resources Ltd. v. [read post]
31 Jan 2011, 12:53 pm
The states did not argue that the revisions to the Medicaid grant program violate the 4-factor test in S.D. v. [read post]
21 Jul 2016, 9:30 pm
Davenport notes that among the states considering developing compliance programs are not just Democratic-led states with climate polices already in place, such as New York and California, but also states that were among the 27 to sue the U.S. [read post]
10 Aug 2021, 1:18 pm
California Chamber of Commerce v. [read post]
20 Jun 2016, 3:00 am
Co. v. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 5:00 am
" citing Matter of O'Mahony v DiNapoli, 157 AD3d 1107, As the record reflected that the training exercise program "arose from, and was a required part of, [Petitioner's] routine duties as a firefighter and given that the attendant risks of that training", the Appellate Division found that "substantial evidence supports the determination denying Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits. [read post]
21 Nov 2022, 5:00 am
" citing Matter of O'Mahony v DiNapoli, 157 AD3d 1107, As the record reflected that the training exercise program "arose from, and was a required part of, [Petitioner's] routine duties as a firefighter and given that the attendant risks of that training", the Appellate Division found that "substantial evidence supports the determination denying Petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits. [read post]
