Search for: "Court Employees of Public Defender's Office"
Results 581 - 600
of 6,030
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jul 2017, 6:17 am
” To ensure that public employees enjoy their right to freedom of political association, the Supreme Court has held that a government may not fire a public employee solely because of his political association or beliefs unless “the hiring authority can demonstrate that party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the public office involved. [read post]
17 May 2007, 5:01 am
You can read the Supreme Court "Order of Public Censure" here. [read post]
16 Aug 2010, 1:49 am
I've grown interested in the revolving door - when employees leave government service for the private sector and go back again - because I think it is substantially less corrupt than bland versions of public choice and capture theory would have it. [read post]
26 May 2022, 9:38 am
By hiring new public defenders as well as an employee who will be specifically responsible for communicating any relevant information with the defendants, the court is sending a clear message that it wants to ensure that everyone is given their opportunity to be heard. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 7:15 am
Both he and the defendants moved for summary judgment. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 2:59 am
The Court explained that public policy will not permit an employee occupying a position of trust and confidence toward his employer to abuse that relation to his own profit, regardless of whether his employer suffers a loss. [read post]
6 May 2021, 2:00 am
The court cited examples such as cases involving employer/employee relationships, public utilities, common carriers, and hospital. [read post]
16 Apr 2014, 8:41 am
The district court overruled defendants’ objections, and a jury eventually convicted them on both counts. [read post]
2 Jan 2013, 9:44 am
The Illinois Supreme Court also rejected the trial court’s conclusion that two of Fennell’s important witnesses would not testify in court in Mississippi because these witnesses were defendant Illinois Central’s employees. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 3:23 pm
Public employees who serve pursuant to a contract are considered to have a property right in their job and generally must be afforded a hearing before termination. [read post]
7 Jul 2023, 1:16 pm
The Court noted that while it’s foreseeable that negligence in employer policies and practices would increase the likelihood of spreading a highly contagious disease to employee household members, to recognize an employer duty of care to non-employees would “impose an intolerable burden on employers and society” that would be in contrast to public policy. [read post]
22 Feb 2021, 6:33 am
This immunity means that public officials, including police officers; town, village, county and state employees; and really anyone else working in government, can avoid litigation if they did not violate clearly established case-law. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 3:23 pm
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, also named as a defendant Coran Development Co. [read post]
27 Oct 2017, 7:57 am
Facts and Analysis Defendant American Future Systems, d/b/a Progressive Business Publications (“Progressive”) employed sales representatives to sell its business publications. [read post]
10 Jul 2007, 8:08 am
While the high court ruled for the defendants in Tellabs v. [read post]
30 Jan 2015, 7:24 am
First Amendment retaliation cases brought by public employees who get fired for speaking out have a trap door that we call the Mount Healthy defense, named after a Supreme Court decision from 1977 that says that even if the plaintiff proves he was fired or demoted for speaking out, the employer can still win the case if it proves that it would have fired or demoted the plaintiff for non-retaliatory reasons. [read post]
16 Jun 2016, 1:51 am
It has been prepared by the Office of the Clerk for the convenience of the reader. [read post]
14 Jul 2024, 3:11 pm
Plaintiffs also argued that the officer defendants violated their continuing Revlon duty to get the best price for the company, but defendants countered that a majority of the directors were not implicated as Revlon requires. [read post]
9 Aug 2024, 8:00 am
Sullivan:This Article argues that the “actual malice” standard for recovery in defamation cases should be abandoned outside cases in which the plaintiff is a “public official,” currently defined as an employee of the government whose office invites public scrutiny and comment. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 4:31 am
Please see the full report posted on the Sheriff’s Office website.In 2002 the Commissioners Court appointed a committee to study the Long Range Plan for the Sheriff’s Office. [read post]
