Search for: "State v. Cassidy"
Results 41 - 60
of 173
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2022, 4:00 am
Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Pataki, 259 AD2d 826, 827-828 [1999], lv dismissed and denied 93 NY2d 993 [1999]; Matter of McGuinn v City of New York, 219 AD2d 489, 490 [1995], lv dismissed and denied 87 NY2d 966 [1996]; Matter of Cassidy v New York City Dept. of Correction, 95 AD2d 733, 734-735 [1983]; Matter of Serth v New York State Dept. of Transp., 79 AD2d 801, 802 [1980]). [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:00 am
Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Pataki, 259 AD2d 826, 827-828 [1999], lv dismissed and denied 93 NY2d 993 [1999]; Matter of McGuinn v City of New York, 219 AD2d 489, 490 [1995], lv dismissed and denied 87 NY2d 966 [1996]; Matter of Cassidy v New York City Dept. of Correction, 95 AD2d 733, 734-735 [1983]; Matter of Serth v New York State Dept. of Transp., 79 AD2d 801, 802 [1980]). [read post]
11 May 2022, 4:00 am
Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Pataki, 259 AD2d 826, 827-828 [1999], lv dismissed and denied 93 NY2d 993 [1999]; Matter of McGuinn v City of New York, 219 AD2d 489, 490 [1995], lv dismissed and denied 87 NY2d 966 [1996]; Matter of Cassidy v New York City Dept. of Correction, 95 AD2d 733, 734-735 [1983]; Matter of Serth v New York State Dept. of Transp., 79 AD2d 801, 802 [1980]). [read post]
5 Jun 2024, 9:40 am
” Senator Cassidy addressed Dr. [read post]
19 Apr 2007, 7:50 am
That is the big news about Gonzales v. [read post]
3 Aug 2013, 12:06 pm
Cassidy (a stalking case involving a federal statute).) [read post]
13 Aug 2010, 12:26 pm
Those interested in this issue should also read, or perhaps re-read, Joni Cassidy's posting on this blog: Skyriver: Could It be a Contender? [read post]
22 Feb 2012, 3:22 am
Part V provides an overview of the growing field of bed bug litigation. [read post]
28 Aug 2011, 2:33 pm
(Eugene Volokh) Here’s one thing that puzzles me about United States v. [read post]
1 Oct 2024, 5:01 am
See Long v. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 6:27 am
If it is found that the third parties in this case were negligent then the respondent will be liable under its non-delegable duty of care to the appellant. [1] Brown v Nelson & Ors [1971] LGR 20 [2] Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293, 301 [3] Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 [4] A (Child) v Ministry of Defence [2005] QB 183, 47 per Lord Phillips of Worth [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 6:27 am
If it is found that the third parties in this case were negligent then the respondent will be liable under its non-delegable duty of care to the appellant. [1] Brown v Nelson & Ors [1971] LGR 20 [2] Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293, 301 [3] Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 [4] A (Child) v Ministry of Defence [2005] QB 183, 47 per Lord Phillips of Worth [read post]
16 Jul 2012, 5:28 pm
From United States v. [read post]
23 Jan 2022, 2:03 pm
On July 17, the Patels (via Davis) sent a proposed but unexecuted triple net lease to Cassidy. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 3:00 am
Martin Cassidy v. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 3:48 pm
Supreme Court decision, Abood v. [read post]
1 Jul 2022, 4:00 am
Tucker Carlson Just Inadvertently Helped Raise $14,000 for Abortion Rights MSN – Steven Zeitchik (Washington Post) | Published: 6/27/2022 Hours after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. [read post]
8 Apr 2019, 8:14 am
Cyberheat CA Appeals Court: Claims Under State Spam Statute Not Preempted by CAN-SPAM – Hypertouch v. [read post]
3 Aug 2010, 6:01 am
” Nine years later, the Supreme Court decided Cassidy v. [read post]
15 Nov 2018, 10:40 am
The court elected to continue consideration of State v. [read post]
