Search for: "IN RE: AMENDMENT TO THE RULES GOVERNING DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS" Results 41 - 60 of 136
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
9 Aug 2012, 2:44 am by Victoria VanBuren
  Armstrong was allowed to re-file an amended complaint within 20 days of the Court’s order which he did the next day. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 5:01 am by Quinta Jurecic
The 11 counts against Eastman are styled as violations of California’s Business and Professions Code, the state statute governing attorney behavior alongside the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. [read post]
8 Aug 2012, 3:42 am by Victoria VanBuren
  More specifically, Armstrong argues that UCI has not delegated any disciplinary proceedings to USADA in connection with any such alleged violations. [read post]
25 May 2019, 10:01 am by Eugene Volokh
Here's an excerpt, from In re Kwan (Utah May 22): This judicial discipline proceeding requires us to decide the appropriate sanction for a judge who has engaged in repeated misconduct. [read post]
7 Aug 2012, 4:40 am by Victoria VanBuren
Amended Complaint—USADA Has No Jurisdiction Armstrong claims that Defendants’ attempt to establish jurisdiction over him under UCI Anti-Doping Rules (UCI ADR) is improper because Defendants have no agreement to arbitrate under these disciplinary proceedings with Mr. [read post]
30 Aug 2019, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Tenth Circuit: Yeah, we're pretty sure the district court got this one right when it ruled against you. [read post]
24 Jun 2023, 1:08 pm by Naomi Shatz
Application of Law to Facts In deciding whether Yale’s proceeding was quasi-judicial, the court reaffirmed that the body in question must be applying “public law,” not its own rules, for the proceeding to qualify. [read post]
23 Nov 2015, 3:15 pm by Jeff Kern and Christopher Bosch
  Consequently, FINRA took on the responsibility to monitor NYSE member conduct under NYSE rules, investigate and enforce violations of NYSE rules, and conduct disciplinary proceedings arising out of such enforcement actions. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
The Civil Service Law of 1883[24]was amended to provide for “the appointment of the candidate standing highest on the eligible list certified by the responsible civil service commission. [read post]
15 Aug 2021, 9:30 pm by Public Employment Law Press
The Civil Service Law of 1883[24]was amended to provide for “the appointment of the candidate standing highest on the eligible list certified by the responsible civil service commission. [read post]
13 Apr 2007, 7:15 am
  Cases upholding the denial of admission on character and fitness grounds inevitably rely on an inference from the past conduct to a prediction that the applicant will do something prohibited by the lawyer disciplinary rules. [read post]
29 Nov 2019, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Student files 13-count complaint against the university, alleging, among other things, that the school's handling of her disciplinary proceeding violated its policies. [read post]
9 Jun 2023, 12:30 pm by John Ross
You can't sue the feds for violating the Fifth Amendment (if you're seeking damages). [read post]
3 Oct 2017, 8:28 am by Harry Graver
Bahlul boycotted the proceedings and instructed his counsel not to present a defense. [read post]
13 Mar 2021, 5:00 am by Andrew Delaney
” constituted a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment. [read post]
11 Mar 2022, 12:30 pm by John Ross
Second Circuit: Ordinarily, witnesses in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings are entitled to absolute immunity from defamation claims, but after a look through Connecticut caselaw dating back to 1894, we're not sure if that includes non-government proceedings like Yale's. [read post]
6 May 2024, 4:43 am by INFORRM
In July 2023, the Information Commission ruled that the government should reveal available data on decision-making in relation to social care funding in a challenge brought by Access Social Care (ASC). [read post]
15 Jan 2008, 1:50 pm
Castro, 540 U.S. 375 (2003); and 2) although no notice of the recharacterization would have been required under the rules set out in US v. [read post]