Search for: "Hand v. State"
Results 8401 - 8420
of 30,542
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jun 2021, 2:57 pm
Plus it's in state court, which means he likely gets out in two and a half. [read post]
28 Mar 2016, 12:05 pm
The State Bar of California may not yet be aware of Mitts’s behavior. [read post]
10 Jan 2012, 3:26 am
It has become tradition for a new Justice to shake hands with each of their fellow Justices in turn, before bowing to them. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 3:58 pm
HTC v. [read post]
1 May 2015, 4:05 pm
” Justice Barrett went on to characterise Fairfax’s conduct after special leave was refused in June 2012, as “high-handed conduct by an organ of the mass media”. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 8:49 pm
” Wells v. [read post]
19 Dec 2023, 11:26 am
A similar law was passed in Arizona in 2010 before being struck down in Arizona v. [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
[FN1] In sum, because the employment agreements appear to have given petitioner a "free hand in determining when and for how long [he] would work" (Matter of Murray v Levitt, 47 AD2d at 269), the Comptroller's determination excluding petitioner's overtime payments from his final average salary is reasonable, supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Shames v Regan, 132 AD2d at 745; Matter of Mowry v… [read post]
26 Jun 2024, 6:00 am
[FN1] In sum, because the employment agreements appear to have given petitioner a "free hand in determining when and for how long [he] would work" (Matter of Murray v Levitt, 47 AD2d at 269), the Comptroller's determination excluding petitioner's overtime payments from his final average salary is reasonable, supported by substantial evidence and will not be disturbed (see Matter of Shames v Regan, 132 AD2d at 745; Matter of Mowry v… [read post]
16 Jun 2010, 3:25 pm
Free Trade v. [read post]
1 Dec 2011, 8:15 am
The Bottom Line: In Development Specialists, Inc. v. [read post]
22 Mar 2017, 11:06 am
Barrett v. [read post]
30 Apr 2018, 2:19 pm
Commodity Futures Trading Commission in Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
The City, on the other hand, argued that Civil Service Law §80 controlled and thus Mousseau, rather than Racine, had to be laid off first. [read post]
1 May 2020, 5:16 am
The City, on the other hand, argued that Civil Service Law §80 controlled and thus Mousseau, rather than Racine, had to be laid off first. [read post]
11 Nov 2009, 11:54 am
You may remember Kelo v. [read post]
10 Jul 2012, 7:11 am
U.S. v. [read post]
28 Apr 2011, 10:06 pm
The most striking feature of Tuesday’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
27 Jun 2024, 2:38 pm
From the majority opinion in Kindschy v. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 9:03 am
The most striking feature of Tuesday’s opinion in United States v. [read post]
