Search for: "State v. Saide" Results 9361 - 9380 of 57,117
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
24 Mar 2010, 4:16 am
It said that his claims must fail, because an employer cannot have violated state or local discrimination laws by implementing federal regulations that determine, as was the case here, whether Kinneary is eligible to serve as a captain.* A termination letter sent from the Assistant Commissioner of the DEP to Kinneary explained that, “I have been made aware of the suspension of your License issued by the United State[s] Coast Guard, which is a requirement of your… [read post]
20 May 2020, 4:21 pm by INFORRM
The original two judgments can be found here : A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2020] EWFC 38 (11 May 2020) (Main judgment) A Local Authority v The Mother & Ors [2020] EWHC 1162 (Fam) (11 May 2020 (Original decision to anonymise) The latest judgment can be found here : PA Media Group v London Borough of Haringey & Ors [2020] EWHC 1282 (Fam) (20 May 2020) You can read Louise Tickle’s tweet thread here : Our team member @louisetickle is a… [read post]
23 Feb 2023, 9:39 am by Melissa De Witte
Evelyn Douek, Assistant Professor of Law(Originally published by Stanford News on October 7, 2022) On the docket for the United States Supreme Court this term is Gonzalez v. [read post]
21 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In Stanton v Board of Trustees, 157 AD2d 712, the court commented that Stanton failed to demonstrate that the appointing authority "made no independent appraisal and reached no independent conclusion”, quoting Matter of Kilgus v Board of Estimate of City of N.Y., 308 NY 620.The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_08385.htmClick here to Read a FREE excerpt from The Discipline Book concerning… [read post]
21 Dec 2018, 4:00 am by Public Employment Law Press
In Stanton v Board of Trustees, 157 AD2d 712, the court commented that Stanton failed to demonstrate that the appointing authority "made no independent appraisal and reached no independent conclusion”, quoting Matter of Kilgus v Board of Estimate of City of N.Y., 308 NY 620.The decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2017/2017_08385.htmClick here to Read a FREE excerpt from The Discipline Book concerning… [read post]
20 Oct 2016, 6:09 am by Dan Tench
  Lord Toulson noted the frequently quoted words of Lord Hoffmann in R v Secretary of State for the Home Office, Ex p Simms [2000] 2 AC 115 that “Fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words” and said importantly that “while Lord Hoffmann said that this presumption will apply “even” to the most general words, but I would say further that the more general the words, the harder it is likely to be to rebut… [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 6:53 am by Richard Montes
United States, 293 F. 1013 (DC 1923)—or the foundation rule set by the state Court of Appeals in Parker v. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 11:47 am
  That made them, according to the United States, California residents. [read post]
30 Mar 2023, 4:05 pm
Since, as I've said, Sections 368(d) and (e) appear to me, anyway, to impose the exact same punishment on caretakers and noncaretakers, perhaps we could create a rule that just says that in such settings, it's not a fatal variance from the charging document to charge (d) even if the facts might otherwise suggest (e). [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 4:02 am
Final administrative determination for the purposes of determining the statute of limitationsSkiptunas v State of New York, App. [read post]
24 Aug 2009, 3:51 pm
Carter has granted the federal government's motion to dismiss the pending lawsuit of Smelt v. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 9:01 pm by Marci A. Hamilton
While the Supreme Court has not retreated from the core holding in Ferber, it has made shutting down the marketplace more difficult with its child pornography holdings in a series of cases, including United States v. [read post]
3 Aug 2007, 1:14 pm
Greg May has brought to my attention a significant en banc decision, United States v. [read post]