Search for: "Murray v. Murray" Results 621 - 640 of 1,800
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
21 Jun 2022, 9:48 am by Rick Garnett
here, the "political divisiveness along religious lines" argument in church-state law has always been wrong: Nearly thirty-five years ago, in Lemon v. [read post]
8 Feb 2024, 5:50 am by jonathanturley
Jason Murray, who is representing Republican voters who want to disqualify Trump. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" This language must be strictly construed in view "of the constitutional provision against the expenditure of public funds absent express statutory authority" (Conrad v Regan, 175 AD2d 629, 629-630 [4th Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 860 [1991]; see NY Const, art VIII, §1; Matter of Murray v Levitt, 47 AD2d 267, 269 [3d Dept 1975], lv denied 37 NY2d 707 [1975]). [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" This language must be strictly construed in view "of the constitutional provision against the expenditure of public funds absent express statutory authority" (Conrad v Regan, 175 AD2d 629, 629-630 [4th Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 860 [1991]; see NY Const, art VIII, §1; Matter of Murray v Levitt, 47 AD2d 267, 269 [3d Dept 1975], lv denied 37 NY2d 707 [1975]). [read post]
16 Jul 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" This language must be strictly construed in view "of the constitutional provision against the expenditure of public funds absent express statutory authority" (Conrad v Regan, 175 AD2d 629, 629-630 [4th Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 860 [1991]; see NY Const, art VIII, §1; Matter of Murray v Levitt, 47 AD2d 267, 269 [3d Dept 1975], lv denied 37 NY2d 707 [1975]). [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
" This language must be strictly construed in view "of the constitutional provision against the expenditure of public funds absent express statutory authority" (Conrad v Regan, 175 AD2d 629, 629-630 [4th Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 860 [1991]; see NY Const, art VIII, §1; Matter of Murray v Levitt, 47 AD2d 267, 269 [3d Dept 1975], lv denied 37 NY2d 707 [1975]). [read post]
18 Jun 2007, 7:26 am
In the court's view, the inmates' claim was governed by Murray v. [read post]
The question of reasonable expectation of privacy is determined by reference to non-exhaustive Murray factors (Murray v Express Newspapers plc [2008] EWCA Civ 446). [read post]
8 Nov 2010, 3:00 am by Matthew Lerner
 Between Panels, the Third Department is inconsistent as to the sole proximate cause defense (a point discussed in the next post regarding Murray v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 4:35 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
“The motion court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant’s motion to amend its answer (see Murray v City of New York, 43 NY2d 400, 404-405 [1977]; McGhee v Odell, 96 AD3d 449, 450 [2012]; CPLR 3025[b]). [read post]