Search for: "Levell v. State" Results 8781 - 8800 of 29,839
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
17 Aug 2018, 4:11 am by Edith Roberts
” At The Federalist Society Review, Richard Raile argues that last term’s decision in partisan-gerrymandering case Gill v. [read post]
17 Aug 2018, 3:52 am by Michael Lowe
  This means understanding how the United States Sentencing Manual works alongside corresponding case precedent (e.g., United States v. [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 6:15 pm by Schachtman
Generally, 95 significance level, for those of you who are mathematicians or [read post]
16 Aug 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
Evaluating the inclusion of "longevity allowance payments" in computing an employee's final average salary for retirement benefit purposesBohlen v DiNapoli,2018 NY Slip Op 05720, Appellate Division, Third DepartmentIn this action Petitioners ask the court to review the Comptroller determination excluding certain compensation from the final average salary in calculating the retirement benefits of 11 long-term, executive level key employees [Petitioners] of the Port… [read post]
15 Aug 2018, 6:17 am by Joy Waltemath
After the transfer, however, the dean assigned the employee to teach different, lower-level courses. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 5:33 am by Benjamin Wittes
This level of dysfunction on either side alone would be enough to preclude a two-state deal. [read post]
14 Aug 2018, 5:07 am
" However, in the one case where the matter has been argued, the result was inconclusive (Francis Day & Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] Ch. 587.) [read post]
13 Aug 2018, 1:27 pm by Greg Mersol
It isn’t all that surprising that the Ninth Circuit would hold that certain types of ERISA claims might not be arbitrable, but its July 24, 2018, decision in Munro v. [read post]
12 Aug 2018, 9:01 pm by Neil Cahn
Lower courts around the state have followed the First Department rule. [read post]
12 Aug 2018, 4:34 pm by Brian Shiffrin
 The Court stated, Where, as here, there is no evidence that the defendant actually possessed the controlled substance, the People are required to establish that the defendant "exercised dominion or control' over the property by a sufficient level of control over the area in which the contraband is found or over the person from whom the contraband is seized" (People v Manini, 79 NY2d 561, 573 [1992]; see Penal Law § 10.00… [read post]