Search for: "Doe 23" Results 521 - 540 of 27,978
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Nov 2017, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Noting that DOE properly considered the factors enumerated in Article 23-A of the Correction Law* with respect to the employment of an individual having a previous criminal conviction, the court opined that the fact that DOE gave greater weight to factors unfavorable to the Petitioner than to those favorable to him did not support the conclusion that DOE did not consider such favorable factors. [read post]
17 Apr 2012, 9:57 am by pfurey
Posted by:  Abby Lane, Fellow Today is Equal Pay Day and you might be wondering, "What exactly does Equal Pay Day mean anyway? [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 7:33 pm by Brad Pauley
The following is our summary of the Supreme Court’s actions on petitions for review in civil cases from the Court’s conference on Wednesday, March 23, 2011. [read post]
9 Jan 2013, 1:46 pm by Lawrence B. Ebert
The examiner does not use Asai to reject claim 5. [read post]
23 Oct 2009, 12:36 pm
The Ninth Circuit held a voluntary dismissal WITHOUT prejudice does not confer prevailing party status.) [read post]
10 Apr 2020, 10:11 am by Woodrow Pollack
 Trial had been scheduled for March 23, 2020, after the COVID19 pandemic had taken over in Florida and the U.S. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 9:32 am by PaulKostro
Div. 2010), A-6107-08, July 23, 2010: N.J.S.A. 2C:14-2c provides that “[a]n actor is guilty of sexual assault if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person” under several circumstances, including when “[t]he actor uses physical force or coercion, but the victim does not sustain severe personal injury. [read post]
24 Jan 2023, 5:25 am by Rob Robinson
The Russian Offensive Campaign Assessments January 23, 2023 By Karolina Hird, George Barros, Kateryna Stepanenko, Layne Philipson, and Frederick W. [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 7:58 am by Brielle A. Basso
But the Circuit Court noted that an “equitable exception to Rule 23(b)(2) simply does not exist, and courts cannot create one to achieve a policy objective, no matter how commendable that objective. [read post]