Search for: "Matter of Coughlin v Coughlin"
Results 61 - 80
of 84
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
1 Sep 2012, 1:53 pm
The Red Team report’s, no matter acknowledgment how grudging, of the essential role of Islamic totalitarianism in the ANA’s murderous actions against US and NATO troops, suggests our military leadership’s current dereliction of duty is even more egregious at present than when Major Coughlin shared his observations in 2007. [read post]
23 Aug 2012, 3:00 am
” NYPPL Comment: On the issue of coercion in connection with an appointing authority’s threatening disciplinary action if the employee does not resign from his or her position, the Court of Appeals has held that threatening to do what the appointing authority had a right to do -- i.e., file disciplinary charges -- did not constitute coercion so as to make the resignation involuntary [Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643]. [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 3:10 am
25 new acquisitions for the Osgoode Hall Law School Library, including 23 from 2012: HV 8599 G8 K45 2012 This side of silence : human rights, torture, and the recognition of cruelty Tobias Kelly. [read post]
15 Jul 2011, 6:09 am
” Coughlin v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 3:27 am
Citing Griffin v Coughlin, 88 NY2d 674, the Appellate Division pointed out that “[t]here is no firmer or more settled principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence than that prohibiting the use of the State’s power to force one to profess a religious belief. [read post]
3 Mar 2011, 3:49 am
”Noting that paragraph 9 of the PBA’s petition seeking to compel arbitration itself confirm that the parties understood that the DEP would be a probationary period, the Appellate Division said that “This clear meaning and understanding of the parties is in complete harmony with the meaning and use of DEPs in similar reported cases,” citing Matter of Miller v Coughlin, 59 NY2d 490, 493; and Matter of McGough v State of New York, 243… [read post]
19 Jan 2011, 3:52 am
In Rychlick v Coughlin, 63 NY2d 643, a case involving a tenured State employee, the Court of Appeals said the employer could threaten the employee with disciplinary action if he or she did not resign. [read post]
6 Dec 2010, 4:07 am
”In affirming the lower court’s decision the Appellate Division observed that Supreme Court’s “findings of fact, based in large measure on its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses,” were supported by a fair interpretation of the record evidence.Addressing Buric allegations that “he was given two unpalatable choices,* or that he chose the service retirement due to financial considerations,” the Appellate Division said that neither constituted… [read post]
13 Sep 2010, 5:11 am
Rev. 80, 132 n.169 (1991) (quoting Justice Hugo Black’s view that “a judge who refuses ever to stray from his judicial philosophy, and be subject to criticism for doing so, no matter how important the issue involved, is a fool”); see also Terminiello v. [read post]
15 Apr 2010, 3:10 pm
Intergulf at *2-3, citing Coughlin v. [read post]
10 Mar 2010, 4:11 am
Attempting to vacate a consent agreement resolving an administrative proceedingMatter of Kirk v State Bd. for Professional Med. [read post]
25 Feb 2010, 12:15 am
The case involves a defense objection under Batson v. [read post]
3 Feb 2010, 4:15 pm
Zargary v. [read post]
27 May 2009, 12:58 am
But in a surprise move Tuesday, attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies, who opposed each other in Bush v. [read post]
26 May 2009, 3:57 am
Coughlin, 854 F. [read post]
5 Apr 2009, 1:26 pm
(Editor’s Note: This post is based on a client memorandum by Jonathan C. [read post]
15 Jan 2009, 4:10 am
Attempting to vacate a consent agreement resolving an administrative proceeding Matter of Kirk v State Bd. for Professional Med. [read post]
23 May 2008, 1:41 am
Matter of Riley v Commissioner of Labor, 2008 NY Slip Op 04588, Decided on May 22, 2008, Appellate Division, Third Department The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board rejected Kristine E. [read post]
28 Jan 2008, 8:17 am
Daley at Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.) [read post]
4 Sep 2007, 2:47 am
Supreme Court to reconsider in light of Carey v. [read post]
