Search for: "Whalen v. State"
Results 61 - 80
of 105
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Jun 2016, 7:22 am
United States v. [read post]
19 Sep 2008, 12:05 pm
"FOIL is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum access to the records of government" (Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, 252; see Buffalo News, Inc. v Buffalo Enterprise Dev. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 4:00 am
Matter of Whalen v Whalen's Moving & Stor. [read post]
14 Nov 2015, 6:13 pm
Schulz and State v. [read post]
3 Mar 2022, 5:21 am
" Whalen v. [read post]
8 Oct 2013, 9:01 pm
Whalen: An Illustration These issues played out in People v. [read post]
11 Oct 2012, 1:35 pm
” The court on November 7 will hear the following cases (with the issue presented as stated on the court’s website): Apple, Inc. v. [read post]
5 Aug 2009, 4:00 am
" [Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246, emphasis supplied].In other words, when faced with a FOIL request, an agency must either provide the record sought, deny the request and indicate the specific exemption to disclosure it is relying upon justifying such refusal, or certify that it does not possess the requested document and that it could not be located after a diligent search. [read post]
20 Mar 2017, 2:10 pm
Pulka v. [read post]
26 Nov 2019, 7:46 am
(Forthcoming)., Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1492 The Role of Dissents in the Formation of Precedent 14 DUKE JOURNAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & PUBLIC POLICY 285 (2019), Univ. of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1493 Allocating Authority between Lawyers and Their Clients after McCoy v. [read post]
13 Nov 2023, 7:27 am
For an earlier federal district court motion pointing out such hallucinated citations in another case, which I hadn't seen mentioned anywhere before and which I just learned about Friday, see Whalen v. [read post]
16 Jul 2015, 7:59 am
According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Whalen v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 10:58 am
Such question presumptively violated a constitutional right to privacy discussed by the Supreme Court in Whalen v. [read post]
4 Jul 2012, 8:00 am
In Banton v. [read post]
7 Jun 2010, 4:00 am
King with nary a mention of Whalen and Cinque or even acknowledging the prior split of authority. [read post]
28 Apr 2015, 1:22 pm
It recalled the extensive commentary by Justice Kennedy, in the Court’s last same-sex marriage decision (United States v. [read post]
20 Jul 2015, 11:26 am
Nelson, 562 U.S. 134 (2009), Whalen v. [read post]
23 Apr 2017, 1:18 pm
Pulka v. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 9:49 am
Whalen v. [read post]
26 Apr 2020, 4:25 pm
Nicklin J ruled that the meaning of Murray’s tweet was that Riley “had publicly stated in a tweet that he [Mr Corbyn] deserved to be violently attacked”. [read post]
