Search for: "State v. C. S."
Results 8321 - 8340
of 37,709
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Jul 2019, 4:15 am
The Appellate Division rejected Respondent's "factual parsing of the incident" and concluded that the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded the ALJ from deciding again whether Petitioner's conduct amounted to physical abuse of the service recipient.Citing D'Arata v New York Cent. [read post]
4 Jul 2019, 8:22 pm
She stated, at paras. [read post]
4 Jul 2019, 3:00 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
4 Jul 2019, 2:57 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 1:24 pm
Boltex Manufacturing Co. v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 1:10 pm
Grasshopper House, LLC v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 8:03 am
§ 512(c)(3)(A)(v). [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 7:01 am
State v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 6:56 am
State v. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 6:19 am
The Vyas sued Atain and Team One in State District Court alleging that Team One’s unreasonable investigation led to the wrongful underpayment and or denial of their claim. [read post]
3 Jul 2019, 3:07 am
Anna Bizer, doctoral candidate at the University of Freiburg, has kindly provided us with her thoughts on AG Szpunar’s opinion in the case of Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland (C-18/18). [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 3:55 pm
Apparent Conflict Between Federal and State Law In seemingly direct conflict with these federal pronouncements are state cases like Dynamex v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 12:53 pm
TD Bank N.A. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:45 am
So what can we take away from Iancu v. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:34 am
Furthermore, the taxpayer’s mental intent is not relevant to challenging a state tax authority’s assessment because the taxpayer’s mental intent is not relevant to the tax obligation. [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 9:28 am
The judges’ conclusions on the key issues In order to make good an art 14 claim, a claimant has to establish that (a) the circumstances fall within the ambit of a substantive Convention right, (b) the claimant has a relevant status for the purposes of art 14, (c) they have been treated differently from others in a similar situation, by reason of their status; if so the burden is then on the state to demonstrate (d) whether the difference in treatment is objectively justified.… [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 5:38 am
Dagenhart and United States v. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 11:44 pm
The payment of the appeal fee was effected with the date of 17 March 2015.V. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 9:03 pm
JOpinion Editor’s note: Gary M. [read post]
1 Jul 2019, 3:24 pm
& Assocs. v. [read post]
