Search for: "*doe, Matter of" Results 6261 - 6280 of 140,216
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
5 Aug 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
"* See Walton v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 8 NY3d 186, quoting Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. [read post]
27 Jul 2019, 1:37 pm by Public Employment Law Press
"* See Walton v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 8 NY3d 186, quoting Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v Department of Info. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 1:24 am by Jani Ihalainen
The Advocate General did, however, note that as the copyright holder in this case is a Member State, it does not enjoy the same rights as the people living in that Member State. [read post]
15 Jan 2019, 1:24 am by Jani Ihalainen
The Advocate General did, however, note that as the copyright holder in this case is a Member State, it does not enjoy the same rights as the people living in that Member State. [read post]
7 Dec 2020, 8:25 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
" Not only does the fact that this comprised a internal grievance suggest it is not First Amendment speech, but "Agosto’s concern appears to have been the protection of his own union leadership position rather than to address a matter of general public interest. [read post]
19 Feb 2016, 2:11 am
If your matter is listed on board on a Monday and it does not “reach” or get called out on that day, it will automatically be re-assigned a CMIS Date, usually a week or more (sometimes, months) later. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
”Essentially public officers and employees enjoy "protected speech" in connection with their public comments concerning a State or municipal employer's activities that are a matter of public concern. [read post]
23 Sep 2013, 10:00 am
The Internal Revenue Service does too for many business owners who are shareholder-employees in an S corporation. [read post]
25 Mar 2016, 3:09 pm by Arthur F. Coon
  Per the Court:  “A municipal ordinance that merely restates or ratifies existing law does not constitute a project and is therefore not subject to environmental review under CEQA. [read post]
16 Jan 2010, 4:38 am by Sam Hasler
If the Decree/agreement says married, thenliving together does not matter. [read post]
5 Nov 2023, 11:16 am by Matthew Stalcup
 While there is no controlling law on this issue, at least three Colorado Federal District trial courts have held that a commercial entity holding a “Business Owner’s Policy” for townhomes or condominiums does not fall within the scope of a “homeowner” as contemplated by the statute.2 The courts reasoned that the statute’s language specifically targets “homeowner’s insurance policies” and makes no provision for commercial or… [read post]
25 Jan 2012, 8:06 am by Sanjeev Bery
  But it does mean preventing the shipment of US weapons that could be used to kill them. [read post]
14 Sep 2010, 7:23 am by Nancy Prager
Vernor was a “licensee” and not an owner, so the First Sale Doctrine does not apply. [read post]
11 Dec 2017, 4:07 pm by INFORRM
And finally, they show that they are truly accountable when they are challenged by readers or by the subjects of their stories – so truly accountable does not mean membership of a sham regulator such as IPSO. [read post]
28 Feb 2019, 1:08 pm by Cleve Clinton
To succeed, what does identifying successions and decision makers look like for Big Daddy’s family business? [read post]
9 Feb 2010, 8:37 am by Diana L. Skaggs
  Kentucky Uniform Arbitration Act Does Not Apply to Family Law Cases A dissolution proceeding is not an arbitratable controversy within the meaning of KRS 417.050, which defines those cases that may be arbitrated. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 12:32 pm by James Esseks, LGBT Project
In his decision, Judge Walker wrote the evidence at trial showed that “same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents are of equal quality,” and “Proposition 8 does not make it more likely that opposite-sex couples will marry and raise offspring biologically related to both parents. [read post]
1 May 2012, 5:12 pm
LUC simply does not have the authority to approve or condemn county actions[.] [read post]