Search for: "Clark v City of New York" Results 41 - 60 of 291
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
29 Jul 2022, 4:42 am by Emma Snell
Carol Rosenberg reports for the New York Times. [read post]
29 Jul 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
Emails Shed Light on Trump Plan to Employ Fake Electors Las Vegas Sun – Maggie Haberman and Luke Broadwater (New York Times) | Published: 7/26/2022 Previously undisclosed emails provide an inside look at the increasingly desperate and often slapdash efforts by advisers to former President Trump to reverse his election defeat in the weeks before the January 6 attack, including acknowledgments that a key element of their plan was of dubious legality and lived up to its… [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 4:00 am by Jim Sedor
National/Federal Cassidy Hutchinson’s Testimony Highlights Legal Risks for Trump Yahoo News – Alan Feuer and Glenn Thrush (New York Times) | Published: 6/29/2022 The extent to which the Justice Department’s expanding criminal inquiry into the insurrection at the U.S. [read post]
24 Jun 2022, 12:20 pm by Benjamin Pollard
The Supreme Court struck down a New York law that placed limits on carrying guns in public, ruling that the Constitution protects gun rights outside the home, writes the New York Times. [read post]
4 Apr 2022, 8:05 am by Howard M. Wasserman
ShareThe Supreme Court on Monday reinstated a New York City man’s lawsuit alleging that police officers violated his Fourth Amendment rights. [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Judicial review of the discharge of a probationary employee is limited to whether the determination was made in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason" (Matter of Petkewicz v Allers, 137 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2016] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 34 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]). [read post]
6 Dec 2021, 5:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
"Judicial review of the discharge of a probationary employee is limited to whether the determination was made in bad faith or for an improper or impermissible reason" (Matter of Petkewicz v Allers, 137 AD3d 1045, 1046 [2016] [citations omitted]; see Matter of Johnson v City of New York, 34 AD3d 484, 485 [2006]). [read post]