Search for: "York v York" Results 6101 - 6120 of 51,486
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Apr 2022, 4:40 pm by Bill Marler
The number of ill persons identified in each state is as follows: Arizona (2), California (3), Colorado (6), Connecticut (1), Delaware (1), Georgia (1), Iowa (2), Illinois (5), Kentucky (2), Massachusetts (4), Maryland (2), Maine (3), Minnesota (6), Missouri (1), Montana (1), North Carolina (2), New Hampshire (2), New Jersey (1), Nevada (2), New York (1), Ohio (3), Oklahoma (1), Oregon (1), Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina (1), Texas (3), Utah (4), Virginia (2), Washington (6), and… [read post]
18 Apr 2022, 6:14 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The law is so settled in this area that, the Court of Appeals (Raggi, Lynch and Lohier) notes, the City of New York did not even argue that the case law in this area, including Duplan v. [read post]
17 Apr 2022, 1:01 pm by Patricia Salkin
However, public officials may not discuss public business at chance meetings or social gatherings.4Basic Requirements of the Open Meetings Law There are four basic requirements of the New York State Open Meetings Law: All meetings must be noticed;The public must be allowed to attend and observe the meetings in person except that portion of ameeting which is in executive session;Proposed local laws, rules, regulations, resolutions, and policies, and any record which is subject… [read post]
16 Apr 2022, 9:43 am by Venkat Balasubramani
The court says that either New York or California law governs, and the result would be the same under either state’s law. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 9:30 pm by ernst
  The New York Public Library says, Not on our watch. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 4:09 am by Emma Snell
  Moldovan MPs have passed a ban on Russian war symbols, including the letters Z and V and the St George ribbon. [read post]
15 Apr 2022, 3:55 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
The Supreme Court’s determination that Howard Fensterman’s conduct during the settlement of the New Franklin litigation “was simply a product of his conflict of interest in representing both buyers and sellers in the New Franklin and Fort Tyron transactions” is a premature factual finding inappropriate at this stage of the litigation (see Warney v State of New York, 16 NY3d 428, 436-437; Matter of Gerard P. v Paula P., 186 AD3d 934, 938). [read post]