Search for: "Still v. Justice Court" Results 8381 - 8400 of 19,629
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Sep 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
SEIU appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.Citing Matter of Taylor v Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 182 AD3d 815 and Matter of Ortiz v Simmons, 67 AD3d 1208, the Appellate Division, noting that one of SEIU's members involved in the instant litigation had retired from the Fire Department, explained "so much of the second amended petition/complaint as was asserted by him is not academic, as the determination that there was… [read post]
16 Sep 2024, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
SEIU appealed the Supreme Court's ruling.Citing Matter of Taylor v Justice Ctr. for the Protection of People with Special Needs, 182 AD3d 815 and Matter of Ortiz v Simmons, 67 AD3d 1208, the Appellate Division, noting that one of SEIU's members involved in the instant litigation had retired from the Fire Department, explained "so much of the second amended petition/complaint as was asserted by him is not academic, as the determination that there was… [read post]
4 May 2020, 2:21 pm
  And, as it happens, in early March (while courts were still holding ordinary sessions) I participated, as amicus, in an argument on the subject in the Michigan Supreme Court in People v. [read post]
1 Aug 2012, 2:44 pm by John Stavropoulos
It’s been just over four months since the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) heard oral argument in The Queen v. [read post]
7 Nov 2024, 3:44 am by Dylan Gibbs
It includes passing references like this one:But the Court clearly still cites its old decisions regularly. [read post]
7 Nov 2024, 3:44 am by Dylan Gibbs
It includes passing references like this one:But the Court clearly still cites its old decisions regularly. [read post]
11 Feb 2017, 4:36 pm by INFORRM
Two judgments have recently been published by Mr Justice Bodey in a financial remedy case. [read post]
24 Oct 2018, 3:49 am
Since the landmark UK Supreme Court decision in Actavis v Eli Lilly ([2017] UKSC 48), judges of the lower courts have voiced the need for clarification from the Supreme Court. [read post]
3 Feb 2019, 4:44 pm
Justice Paciocco declined to adjust it. [read post]