Search for: "Disciplinary Counsel v. Large"
Results 61 - 80
of 247
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Oct 2008, 11:10 am
"The test of whether a decision is arbitrary or capricious is "determined largely by whether a particular action should have been taken or is justified . . . and whether the administrative action is without foundation in fact.'" (See Matter of Pell v Board of Educ., 34 NY2d 222].Other points made by Justice Feinman:1. [read post]
29 Sep 2008, 1:52 am
As a result, the principal and superintendent received a large volume of calls and e-mails about the proposed cancellation. [read post]
19 Dec 2022, 8:58 am
Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985). [read post]
5 Jul 2020, 7:58 pm
In Nanda v. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 5:51 am
See Barone v. [read post]
19 Jun 2011, 9:30 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 11:10 pm
Because our list of “Petitions to watch” for that Conference will be quite large, we will feature the petitions in installments, as they are distributed for the Court’s review. [read post]
9 Feb 2007, 8:20 am
Sullivan & Cromwell and Sullivan & Cromwell v. [read post]
26 Apr 2017, 2:29 pm
See Texas Disciplinary R. [read post]
12 Jun 2009, 3:12 pm
" Marbury v. [read post]
3 Jun 2018, 4:58 pm
The discipline involved Groia’s defence in R. v. [read post]
2 Feb 2023, 5:01 am
” By this point, Texas v. [read post]
3 Jun 2022, 6:02 am
"] From Judge Cabranes's concurrence yesterday in Vengalattore v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 6:00 am
Many years ago, a couple of our international lawyers were meeting with in-house legal counsel for a very large Korean company, or chaebol. [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 10:07 am
See U.S. v. [read post]
17 Sep 2008, 9:21 pm
United States v. [read post]
23 May 2016, 5:10 am
Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), not strict scrutiny, applied. [read post]
10 May 2019, 4:30 am
United States v. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 7:43 am
In Doe v. [read post]
3 Dec 2022, 7:08 am
Pix Credit hereWhile interest in this case, HKSAR v Lai Man Ling [2022] 4 HKC 410, [2022] HKDC 355, reported in September 2022, may be diminishing, its relevance requires sustained examination. [read post]
