Search for: "Matter of Doe v Kelly"
Results 61 - 80
of 636
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Dec 2009, 11:25 am
But it does not end there. [read post]
24 May 2024, 6:00 am
; Kelly, 30 NY3d at 678; Lichtenstein, 57 NY2d at 1012; see also Matter of Picciurro v Board of Trustees of the N.Y. [read post]
24 May 2024, 6:00 am
; Kelly, 30 NY3d at 678; Lichtenstein, 57 NY2d at 1012; see also Matter of Picciurro v Board of Trustees of the N.Y. [read post]
23 May 2008, 1:37 am
Kelly, however, had been convicted of two counts of grand larceny for theft of school property prior to being charged under Section 3020-a [People v Kelly, 72 AD2d 670]. [read post]
23 Aug 2018, 7:10 am
See Winston v. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 4:00 am
In contrast to the ruling in Johnston, in Matter of Murphy v City of New York, Appellate Division, First Department, 35 A.D.3d 319, the court ruled that John J. [read post]
4 Jun 2018, 6:10 pm
Kelly Tucker, a public school teacher in Tift County, engaged in a written debate on Facebook regarding the Black Lives Matter movement. [read post]
6 Jan 2021, 8:47 am
Mike Kelly and others: Kelly v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 11:02 am
v=dyoBP8dDG7s [read post]
20 Apr 2009, 6:44 pm
Kelly). [read post]
20 Jul 2020, 7:34 pm
MARK KELLY, Defendant. [read post]
11 Oct 2018, 5:00 am
In the case of Pearce v. [read post]
29 Nov 2010, 8:53 am
Miller v. [read post]
5 Jun 2007, 2:30 pm
(Kelly v. [read post]
15 Aug 2013, 12:24 pm
Kelly Decl. [read post]
10 Jan 2022, 2:15 pm
” (…) Glaser Weil’s argument focused on MDQ, LLC v. [read post]
27 Dec 2012, 4:00 am
" As to the penalty imposed, dismissal, the court said that it concluded that “the penalty of termination from petitioner's employment is not ‘so disproportionate to the offense[s] as to be shocking to one's sense of fairness,’ and thus does not constitute an abuse of discretion as a matter of law,” citing Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32 [read post]
1 Feb 2010, 7:57 pm
In Doe v. [read post]
18 May 2011, 11:44 am
Justices Cavanaugh and Kelly concurred in the result, finding that MCL 168.467m(1) also authorized holdovers and does not conflict with the Michigan Constitution. [read post]
