Search for: "Court v. Administrative Office"
Results 5641 - 5660
of 13,870
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
24 Nov 2017, 4:41 pm
One of these exemptions is the “professional exemption,” which was analyzed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Dybach v. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 8:39 am
In Gordon v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 7:00 am
On June 16, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in NLRB v. [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 7:00 am
On June 16, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in NLRB v. [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 4:00 am
Supreme Court denied Petitioner's CPLR Article 78 petition and dismissed the proceeding.The Appellate Division subsequently affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, opining that although an administrative determination may be annulled when it "was made in violation of lawful procedure [or] was affected by an error of law" there were no relevant issues of fact that would have necessitated a post-termination hearing, citing Prue v Hunt , 78 NY2d 364. [read post]
11 Aug 2022, 3:50 pm
§1658(a)s catch-all-limitations period.MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. [read post]
18 Sep 2020, 4:00 am
Supreme Court denied Petitioner's CPLR Article 78 petition and dismissed the proceeding.The Appellate Division subsequently affirmed the Supreme Court's ruling, opining that although an administrative determination may be annulled when it "was made in violation of lawful procedure [or] was affected by an error of law" there were no relevant issues of fact that would have necessitated a post-termination hearing, citing Prue v Hunt , 78 NY2d 364. [read post]
14 Dec 2023, 5:56 pm
The court reasoned that the NJ Legislature, in writing the WCA, recognized a "historic tradeoff" where the employee gives up the right for a civil action against the employer and instead accepts only a summary, no-fault, administrative remedy against the employer, workers' compensation benefits.HEUMAN v. [read post]
12 Mar 2014, 7:38 am
(“Circle C”), challenges a decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings awarding worker’s compensation benefits to Appellee, Tara Kobielusz. [read post]
3 May 2022, 5:00 am
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order "on the law. [read post]
28 Mar 2023, 11:00 pm
”Given those discrepancies, the appellate court concluded that Corrections lacked a bonafide basis to withhold the requested footage and remitted the matter to the Albany County Supreme Court for a determination as to the fees and costs awardable to PLS, given its prevailing party status here.Looks like that FOIL foolishness got flogged.# # #Matter of Prisoners' Legal Servs. of N.Y. v New York State Dept. of Corr. [read post]
3 May 2022, 5:00 am
The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order "on the law. [read post]
1 Jan 2011, 2:55 pm
The remedy of the administrative court system is a lengthy one. [read post]
23 Sep 2024, 7:00 am
The first intervening case was the Court's 2020 decision in Seila Law LLC v. [read post]
28 Mar 2014, 1:10 pm
United States v. [read post]
14 Jun 2012, 10:39 am
Arizona applies: (1) unless the officer objectively should have known that his question was likely to elicit an incriminating response, as some courts have held; (2) unless the officer’s intent was to elicit an incriminating response, as other courts have held; or (3) to all questions that serve a legitimate administrative function, regardless of whether the officer should have known that the questions would likely elicit an incriminating… [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 1:52 pm
By Linda Friedman Ramirez[1] On February 28, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Innovation Lab v Wolf and affirmed a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security in its controversial Migrant Protection Protocols.[2] The injunction had been issued by the District Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2019. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 1:52 pm
By Linda Friedman Ramirez[1] On February 28, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided Innovation Lab v Wolf and affirmed a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security in its controversial Migrant Protection Protocols.[2] The injunction had been issued by the District Court for the Northern District of California on April 8, 2019. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 4:13 am
”Nor, said the court, did the hearing officer exceed his jurisdiction in "finding that petitioner engaged in a pattern of dishonesty. [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 5:48 pm
Cert granted today in Arizon v. [read post]
