Search for: "Johnson v. Hudson" Results 41 - 60 of 102
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
10 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
What constitutes a public purpose is defined broadly and "encompasses any use which contributes to the health, safety, general welfare, convenience or prosperity of the community" (Matter of 225 Front St., Ltd. v City of Binghamton, 61 AD3d 1155, 1157 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Johnson v Town of Caroga, 162 AD3d 1353, 1355 [3d Dept 2018]; see Matter of Court St. [read post]
10 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
What constitutes a public purpose is defined broadly and "encompasses any use which contributes to the health, safety, general welfare, convenience or prosperity of the community" (Matter of 225 Front St., Ltd. v City of Binghamton, 61 AD3d 1155, 1157 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Johnson v Town of Caroga, 162 AD3d 1353, 1355 [3d Dept 2018]; see Matter of Court St. [read post]
23 Apr 2015, 3:33 pm by Richard M. Re
” And Johnson, unlike Hudson, involved pre-trial detainees. [read post]
30 Jan 2012, 1:19 pm by Lindsay Griffiths
Hudson (@raleighlaura) Felicity Aston (@fpaston) Contact Monkey (@ContactMonkey) Debbie Pollard Pawlowski (@majesticmills) Kate Haueisen (@kateh32 and @vid4pro) Dawn (@DiscoInfiltrato) Melissa Thomas (@missybassettlaw) [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]
13 Dec 2006, 7:17 pm
Brunsting, Stephen Brusell, Mark Bryan, David Bryant, Eulonda Bryant, Robert Bryant, Displaced Bubba, Byron Buckley, Carl Buhlman, Richard Burke, Erik Burrows, Randy Bush, Jay Buxton, Phyllis Byrd, Marie Cajuste, Joseph T Calhoon, Michelle Calhoun, Brian Callaghan, Mandy Camden, Heidi Campbell, Tom Campbell, Pedro Canahuati, Mike Canavan, Nicholas Cancelliere, Julia Cannon, Eric Cantor, Sam Cao, Linda Cappuccio, Britt Carlile, Tirzah Carpio, Josh Carrico, Jason Cash, Jim Cashion, Chris Casson,… [read post]
”[22] While Virginia Pharmacy found that commercial speech is entitled to at least some level of First Amendment protection, the level of judicial review was not articulated until a few years later in the seminal case Central Hudson v. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 2:18 pm by Eric
Eric Johnson sent out swatches of the color as part of his Museum of IP, so I also have that [read post]
25 Jul 2018, 9:30 pm by Charlotte Garden
” The majority’s discussion of this principle was remarkably thin, resting on just two cases: Johnson v. [read post]