Search for: "State v. Kelly" Results 781 - 800 of 2,123
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Mar 2010, 9:47 am by Kenneth J. Vanko
--Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of IllinoisOpinion Date: 2/26/10Cite: Viad Corp. v. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Citing Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521, the Appellate Division opined that the possibility of Officer obtaining administrative relief was exhausted when Officer retired without a change in his modified status. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Citing Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521, the Appellate Division opined that the possibility of Officer obtaining administrative relief was exhausted when Officer retired without a change in his modified status. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Citing Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521, the Appellate Division opined that the possibility of Officer obtaining administrative relief was exhausted when Officer retired without a change in his modified status. [read post]
7 Oct 2021, 7:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
  Citing Matter of Baloy v Kelly, 92 AD3d 521, the Appellate Division opined that the possibility of Officer obtaining administrative relief was exhausted when Officer retired without a change in his modified status. [read post]
23 Apr 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
As to the penalty imposed, dismissal from his employment with the New York City police department, the Appellate Division opined that "the penalty of dismissal is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the multiple violations involved", citing Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32. [read post]
12 Nov 2013, 9:21 am by WSLL
Affirmed.Case Name: EVELYN DIFELICI, f/k/a EVELYN BARNES v. [read post]
23 Apr 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
As to the penalty imposed, dismissal from his employment with the New York City police department, the Appellate Division opined that "the penalty of dismissal is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the multiple violations involved", citing Matter of Kelly v Safir, 96 NY2d 32. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 12:10 pm by Julie Lam
Justice Weaver, joined by Justice Hathaway, issued a separate dissenting opinion agreeing with Justice Young’s criticism that the new rule will have unforseen consequences, and stating that “the majority’s unrestrained decision today is a huge mistake. [read post]