Search for: "Back v. State" Results 61 - 80 of 45,928
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 May 2024, 9:01 pm by renholding
-linked assets held outside the United States that would clear through the U.S. financial system. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
IntegrateNYC, Inc. v State of New York2024 NY Slip Op 02369Decided on May 02, 2024Appellate Division, First DepartmentMoulton, J.Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.Decided and Entered: May 02, 2024 SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION First Judicial DepartmentSallie Manzanet-DanielsPeter H. [read post]
8 May 2024, 5:57 am by Steven Cohen
  The plaintiff states that felt a pop in his lower back/hip when he picked up a lock line. [read post]
8 May 2024, 4:26 am by jonathanturley
In comparison, Daniels may be the only authentic part of the entire case in New York v. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm by Evan Brown
This flawed scope suggests no direct link between the law’s restrictions and the stated security concerns, weakening its justification under strict scrutiny. [read post]
7 May 2024, 1:11 pm by Evan Brown
This flawed scope suggests no direct link between the law’s restrictions and the stated security concerns, weakening its justification under strict scrutiny. [read post]
7 May 2024, 9:32 am by vforberger
Note: The 40% administrative penalty is actually two separate penalties: a 15% penalty that goes back into the unemployment trust fund and a 25% penalty that goes into a separate program integrity fund. [read post]
Starbucks (10(j) Relief Standard):  On April 23, 2024, oral argument before the United States Supreme Court took place in Starbucks Corp. v. [read post]