Search for: "State v. Perry"
Results 681 - 700
of 2,163
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Dec 2006, 6:41 am
City of Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 423 (1987); Perry v. [read post]
28 May 2009, 12:10 am
The complaint (full text) in Perry v. [read post]
15 Feb 2020, 4:39 pm
Chatterjee v CBS, 6:19-CV-212-REW United States District Court, E.D. [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:00 am
"Finally, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioners' membership reclassification did not violate Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired", since "petitioners were never… [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:00 am
"Finally, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioners' membership reclassification did not violate Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired", since "petitioners were never… [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:00 am
"Finally, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioners' membership reclassification did not violate Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired", since "petitioners were never… [read post]
9 May 2022, 5:00 am
"Finally, opined the Appellate Division, Petitioners' membership reclassification did not violate Article V, §7 of the New York State Constitution which, in pertinent part, provides that "After July first, nineteen hundred forty, membership in any pension or retirement system of the state or of a civil division thereof shall be a contractual relationship, the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired", since "petitioners were never… [read post]
7 Apr 2023, 11:23 am
(See Edwards v. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 3:37 pm
Perry. [read post]
28 May 2017, 8:30 am
Specifically, citing McCreary County v. [read post]
10 May 2012, 11:15 pm
SOURCE: HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS - 01-10-01067-CV – 5/10/12 CASE STYLE: Michael Easton and Dawn Johnson Whatley, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Perry Lee Whatley v. [read post]
4 Jan 2007, 3:37 am
United States" 294 U.S. 330 y "U.S. v. [read post]
25 Jun 2021, 6:34 am
United States v. [read post]
25 Mar 2010, 10:46 am
Perry, Judge.Representing Appellant Morris (Plaintiff): Patrick G. [read post]
14 Sep 2017, 1:33 pm
,ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND FOR ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED v. [read post]
16 May 2017, 2:55 am
A General Civil Restraint Order against issuing further IP claims - Is this the end of the Perry v Brundle saga? [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 4:05 am
Velte, Why the Religious Right Can't Have Its (Straight Wedding) Cake and Eat It Too: Breaking the Preservation-Through-Transformation Dynamic in Masterpiece Cakeshop V. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 9:00 pm
In Perry, et al, v The City of New York, et al, Docket No. 21-2095, decided August 25, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said:"In this collective action, a group of 2,519 EMTs and paramedics allege that their employer, the City of New York, willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring them to perform work before and after their shifts without paying them for that work unless the plaintiffs specifically requested… [read post]
2 Sep 2013, 4:05 am
Farnan v. [read post]
25 Aug 2023, 9:00 pm
In Perry, et al, v The City of New York, et al, Docket No. 21-2095, decided August 25, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said:"In this collective action, a group of 2,519 EMTs and paramedics allege that their employer, the City of New York, willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by requiring them to perform work before and after their shifts without paying them for that work unless the plaintiffs specifically requested… [read post]