Search for: "BROOKS v. STATE" Results 961 - 980 of 2,034
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
8 Jun 2019, 5:43 am by Joel R. Brandes
Corp. v. 2319 Richmond Terrace Corp., 141 A.D.3d 626, 627, 34 N.Y.S.3d 616).Oral promise to pay credit card bills during the pendency of action unenforceable            In Novick v Novick, ‑‑‑ N.Y.S.3d ‑‑‑‑, 2019 WL 2202438 (Mem), 2019 N.Y. [read post]
11 May 2015, 4:45 am by Jon Hyman
As another panel of this same court recognized a few years ago, in Brooks v. [read post]
4 Oct 2016, 7:49 am by Sandy Levinson
 Barnett's critique of "minimum rationality" when used mindlessly to uphold rent seeking regulation like that in Williamson v. [read post]
15 Apr 2011, 6:02 am by Bexis
  We, of course think that's wrong under Erie - where the default should be, if a form of liability hasn't been recognized by a state court, then it should be dismissed by a federal court applying that state's law in a diversity action.ConnecticutIn Gerrity v. [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 12:32 pm by Public Employment Law Press
"Generally, a claimant who voluntarily withdraws from the labor market by retiring is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits unless the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the retirement" (Matter of Losquadro v Nassau County Police Dept., 225 AD3d 1083, 1084 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Digbasanis v Pelham Bay Donuts Inc., 224 AD3d 1047, 1048-1049 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of… [read post]
3 Jul 2024, 12:32 pm by Public Employment Law Press
"Generally, a claimant who voluntarily withdraws from the labor market by retiring is not entitled to workers' compensation benefits unless the claimant's disability caused or contributed to the retirement" (Matter of Losquadro v Nassau County Police Dept., 225 AD3d 1083, 1084 [3d Dept 2024] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; accord Matter of Digbasanis v Pelham Bay Donuts Inc., 224 AD3d 1047, 1048-1049 [3d Dept 2024]; Matter of… [read post]
10 Feb 2014, 2:01 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
Perhaps the most important exclusion from patentability, discussed further below, is India’s Section 3(d).The authors cited Pfizer v. [read post]
8 Aug 2007, 4:11 am
Brooks, Judge Representing Appellant (Defendant): Donald Eugene McDaniel, pro se. [read post]