Search for: "Marshall v. York" Results 61 - 80 of 1,199
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
22 May 2009, 1:09 pm
Earlier today, New York's  Appellate Division, Second Department published a decision In The Matter Of Astor denying Anthony D. [read post]
2 Mar 2018, 2:30 am by NCC Staff
Marshall further clarified that Congress can regulate matters internal to a state that are fundamentally intertwined with interstate commerce, like the New York monopoly. [read post]
7 Aug 2020, 10:19 am by Josh Blackman
" The following year, I told the New York Times that if Taney's tribute was removed, then Chief Justice Marshall would be next. [read post]
16 Jan 2008, 5:17 pm
Thus spake Justice Stevens, concurring in yesterday's decision in New York State Bd. of Elections v. [read post]
14 Apr 2013, 8:49 pm by Patent Docs
April 15, 2013 - Association for Molecular Pathology v. [read post]
5 Apr 2010, 4:29 am by SHG
I've gotten some ribbing from lawyers because of my representation of the defendant in Stern v. [read post]
18 Aug 2011, 3:08 am by Andrew Lavoott Bluestone
Co. of N.Y., 98 NY2d 314, 326; see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d at 87), the complaint herein sufficiently alleges a cause of action in negligence against the SLS defendants and the SLS employees (see Rivera v New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, 191 F Supp 2d at 421; see also Williams v State of New York, 84 AD3d 412). [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 3:22 pm
Dueling Suits Between Firm, Ex-Partner Are Dismissed [New York Law Journal via Am Law Daily] Pitcock v. [read post]
6 Mar 2012, 2:21 am by rhapsodyinbooks
It also enumerates the pressures on Marshall, who was simultaneously working on arguments for Brown v. [read post]
17 May 2009, 6:31 am by rhapsodyinbooks
Black, Jr. helped Thurgood Marshall of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc. to write the legal brief for Linda Brown, a 10-year-old student in Topeka, Kansas, whose historic case, Brown v. [read post]
8 Jun 2016, 4:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
"The Pena court, citing City of New York v New York State Div. of Human Rights, 93 NY2d 768, said that only if Pena’s challenge to the list itself was successful would she have a remedy that comports with Article V, §6 of the New York State Constitution, in that the original list would have had no legal existence and thus could not have expired, allowing for extension of a 'corrected' list. [read post]