Search for: "Grant v. State" Results 5481 - 5500 of 68,560
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
23 Nov 2022, 6:06 am by jonathanturley
There is the opinion granting the preliminary injunction: Christian v. [read post]
23 Nov 2022, 5:29 am by Patricia Salkin
  He filed suit in federal court and it was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 5:27 pm by Anna Bower
Joshi replies that the court’s precedent has suggested as much in United States v. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Citing Seifullah v City of New York, 161 AD3d 1206, the Appellate Division said contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent to the maintenance of his action and Plaintiff's reliance upon Margerum v City of Buffalo (24 NY3d 721) was misplaced. * See Executive Law §296. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Citing Seifullah v City of New York, 161 AD3d 1206, the Appellate Division said contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent to the maintenance of his action and Plaintiff's reliance upon Margerum v City of Buffalo (24 NY3d 721) was misplaced. * See Executive Law §296. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Citing Seifullah v City of New York, 161 AD3d 1206, the Appellate Division said contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent to the maintenance of his action and Plaintiff's reliance upon Margerum v City of Buffalo (24 NY3d 721) was misplaced. * See Executive Law §296. [read post]
22 Nov 2022, 5:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Citing Seifullah v City of New York, 161 AD3d 1206, the Appellate Division said contrary to the Plaintiff's contention, the filing of a notice of claim was a condition precedent to the maintenance of his action and Plaintiff's reliance upon Margerum v City of Buffalo (24 NY3d 721) was misplaced. * See Executive Law §296. [read post]