Search for: "State v. Law" Results 8481 - 8500 of 155,402
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
28 Aug 2024, 4:28 pm by INFORRM
ARTICLE 19 together with the Human Rights Centre of Ghent University, also submitted a third-party intervention to the ECtHR insisting on the difference between prohibitions on blasphemy and insult of a religion (which are not allowed under international human rights law) and incitement to hatred, hostility and violence (which States are obliged to prohibit and prosecute under international human rights law). [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 7:00 am by The Public Employment Law Press
An entity claiming that it is not subject to the State’s Freedom of Information Law has the burden to provide documentary evidence that conclusively establishes such a defense as a matter of lawNassau Community Coll. [read post]
27 May 2010, 11:16 am by Omar Ha-Redeye
(B.), where the court stated, 50  The law on the question is clear. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Servs. v Mills, 4 NY3d 51.Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet. ### The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page NYPPL e-book reviewing the relevant New York State laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. [read post]
23 Oct 2023, 6:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Servs. v Mills, 4 NY3d 51.Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet. ### The Layoff, Preferred List and Reinstatement Manual - a 645 page NYPPL e-book reviewing the relevant New York State laws, rules and regulations, and selected court and administrative decisions. [read post]
23 Apr 2014, 10:33 am by The Public Employment Law Press
State voters may amend a state's constitution to prohibit consideration of racial preferences with respect admission to colleges and universities if it does not reflect a racially discriminatory purpose Schuette v. [read post]
14 Feb 2022, 10:32 am by Eric Goldman
The court later says “the allegations are that Defendants’ tools themselves function in a way to direct users to CSAM in particular, as opposed to treating CSAM the same way that lawful videos on Defendants’ websites are treated,” but the court contradictorily cites multiple items of evidence that all videos were treated similarly. [read post]