Search for: "Lynch, Appeal of"
Results 521 - 540
of 1,818
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
28 Nov 2017, 6:43 am
The Court of Appeals agrees that plaintiff's rights were violated, but it takes away the verdict because the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.The case is Allah v. [read post]
2 Jul 2018, 7:44 am
For defendant, the shed area is curtilage, and the Court of Appeals holds, because that area was a few steps from his back door, he used that area for recreation (like barbeques). [read post]
19 Sep 2016, 7:16 am
Yes, but it can't because the Court of Appeals has already resolved this issue. [read post]
26 Apr 2023, 6:00 am
The Court of Appeals affirms, but on different grounds, dismissing the case. [read post]
26 Sep 2014, 6:43 am
The Court of Appeals (Katzmann, Sack and Lynch) is not buying it.Cohen invokes "continuing violations" because Department of Corrections ignored his requests for a reasonable accommodation. [read post]
9 Mar 2018, 6:41 am
Sometimes yet, but not in this case.The Court of Appeals (Walker, Lynch and Chin) finds a way to revive this case even though plaintiff lost the disciplinary hearing and Article 78. [read post]
31 Oct 2014, 7:46 am
Heck is a complicated case, and the Court of Appeals resolves the case without delving into that precedent. [read post]
15 Feb 2024, 6:34 am
The Court of Appeals (Parker, Lynch and Lohier) notes that "To allege injury-in-fact under their theory of organizational standing, Appellants must show that the 2019 Notice imposed 'an involuntary material burden on [their] established core activities,' that impeded their 'ability to carry out [their] responsibilities' or forced them to divert money from [their] other current activities to advance [their] established organizational interests. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 5:19 am
The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Lynch and Rakoff [D.J.]) says she was not. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 7:15 am
But the Court of Appeals (Lynch, Carney and Koeltl [D.J.]) says the trial court had no choice in light of the intervening ruling in Nassar. [read post]
27 May 2020, 9:08 am
The Court of Appeals agrees that there is no malicious prosecution claim. [read post]
8 Apr 2021, 6:14 am
The Court of Appeals (Leval, Lynch and Bianco) says he does not. [read post]
9 Dec 2013, 8:04 am
He also argued that the offer was like a Rule 68 offer which would also limit the attorneys' fees.No dice, says the Court of Appeals (Raggi, Lynch and Lohier). [read post]
3 May 2019, 6:37 am
But the Court of Appeals (Hall, Lynch and Engelmayer [D.J.]) disagrees and finds for the plaintiffs, reasoning that they allege the very injury the TCPA was intended to prevent, which is "nuisance and privacy invasion. [read post]
12 Aug 2016, 5:58 am
The Court of Appeals says the police did not violate the Constitution.The case is United States v. [read post]
29 Jan 2018, 8:00 am
Lynch of the 2nd U.S. [read post]
6 Apr 2021, 5:57 am
So the plaintiffs lose.A sad case all around, as the Court of Appeals (Pooler, Parker and Lynch) recognizes at the end of the opinion. [read post]
11 Oct 2013, 7:59 am
The jury ruled for the police and found that the police did not owe Velez any duty of care under state negligence law.The Court of Appeals (Lynch, Lohier and Carney) affirms. [read post]
20 Feb 2013, 7:01 am
The district court said no, but the Court of Appeals (Newman, Raggi and Lynch) says Yes. [read post]
30 Jan 2018, 6:39 am
The Court of Appeals (Winter, Lynch and Droney) answers that in the affirmative. [read post]
