Search for: "See v. See" Results 821 - 840 of 122,075
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Jul 2024, 6:30 am by Guest Blogger
Moreover, over 50 years after the Supreme Court invalidated miscegenation laws in Loving v. [read post]
18 Jul 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
However, the court should not have awarded the petitioner the ultimate relief sought in the petition, since the respondents had not yet filed an answer or the administrative record (see CPLR 7804[f]; Matter of O'Hara v Board of Educ., Yonkers City Sch. [read post]
18 Jul 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
However, the court should not have awarded the petitioner the ultimate relief sought in the petition, since the respondents had not yet filed an answer or the administrative record (see CPLR 7804[f]; Matter of O'Hara v Board of Educ., Yonkers City Sch. [read post]
18 Jul 2024, 5:31 am by Josh Blackman
I can tell you that in my week in Israel, I did not see a single Palestinian flag. [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 1:27 pm by Eugene Volokh
" And now we see something similar in a high-profile case arising out of the anti-Israel protests, Doe v. [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 6:51 am by Dan Bressler
However, where disqualification is not required under objective standards, a judge ‘is the sole arbiter of recusal’ (People v Moreno, 70 NY2d 403, 405 [1987]). [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Inasmuch as the Attorney General's office was not an agency involved in the FOIL request, and is without authority to grant relief requested by petitioner, the Attorney General is not a proper party herein (see Matter of Davis v Evans, 97 AD3d 857, 858 [3d Dept 2012]; Matter of Abreu v Hogan, 72 AD3d 1143, 1144 [3d Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836 [2010]). [read post]
17 Jul 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Inasmuch as the Attorney General's office was not an agency involved in the FOIL request, and is without authority to grant relief requested by petitioner, the Attorney General is not a proper party herein (see Matter of Davis v Evans, 97 AD3d 857, 858 [3d Dept 2012]; Matter of Abreu v Hogan, 72 AD3d 1143, 1144 [3d Dept 2010], appeal dismissed 15 NY3d 836 [2010]). [read post]