Search for: "STATE v MURPHY" Results 821 - 840 of 2,304
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Dec 2012, 2:00 am by Peter Mahler
In Giaimo, the trial court adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation to apply a so-called “Murphy discount” — named after Murphy v. [read post]
1 Dec 2009, 2:34 pm by Darius
Does the law need to be changed as a result of the Dublin Archdiocese Report on Child Sexual Abuse (the Murphy report, 2009)? [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Murphy v Herfort, 428 NY2d 117, is an example of litigation resulting statements contained in communications between administrators; Missek-Falkoff v Keller, 153 AD2d 841, is an example of a case where one employee sued another employee because of the contents of a memorandum from the second employee to a superior concerning a “problem” with the coworker.As alternatives to claiming absolute immunity or qualified immunity, a public officer or employee… [read post]
12 Mar 2019, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
 Murphy v Herfort, 428 NY2d 117, is an example of litigation resulting statements contained in communications between administrators; Missek-Falkoff v Keller, 153 AD2d 841, is an example of a case where one employee sued another employee because of the contents of a memorandum from the second employee to a superior concerning a “problem” with the coworker.As alternatives to claiming absolute immunity or qualified immunity, a public officer or employee… [read post]
28 Jun 2012, 9:30 pm by Richard Murphy
 As the Supreme Court stressed in Massachusetts v. [read post]
4 Mar 2019, 1:50 pm by Ilya Somin
Judge Orrick followed these and other federal court decisions in ruling that Section 1373 is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's recent decision in Murphy v. [read post]
14 Mar 2018, 4:05 am by Edith Roberts
At Bloomberg Law, Patrick Gregory discusses how the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. [read post]
31 Jul 2023, 4:47 pm by INFORRM
In the court below (6 F4th 1160 (10th Cir, 2021)), the majority of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Briscoe J, Murphy J concurring; Tymkovich CJ dissenting) held that, although the appellant’s First Amendment rights were engaged, the State satisfied strict scrutiny: Colorado had a compelling interest in ensuring equal access to publicly available goods and services, and no option short of coercing speech could satisfy that interest. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 3:19 pm by Hilary Hurd
Strawbridge punts the question and suggests that the court follow the model of United States v. [read post]