Search for: "D.J.1"
Results 81 - 100
of 254
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
26 Oct 2016, 4:38 pm
Here is what the Second Circuit (Lohier, Livingston and Rakoff [D.J.]) does with the case:1. [read post]
15 Aug 2016, 6:27 am
The Court of Appeals (Livingston, Carney and Stanceu [D.J.]) is not sure about this.We are not so certain that where, as here, the state expressly classifies inmates on the basis of religion in the prison context, a plaintiff challenging the state’s express classification on Equal Protection grounds must show either (1) that she was treated differently than members of a similarly situated group, or (2) that the state’s express classification was the result of… [read post]
9 Feb 2021, 8:35 am
City of New York, a summary order issued on February 1. [read post]
7 Jul 2017, 5:54 am
§ 825.115(e)’s requirements of “[c]onditions requiring multiple treatments,” and a ”period of absence to receive multiple treatments (including any period 1 of recovery therefrom) by a health care provider. [read post]
5 Dec 2022, 6:47 am
In that portion of the case, the Court of Appeals (Bianco, Carney and Komittee [D.J.]) said that even there were a First Amendment violation (the speech being the middle finger), the defendants have qualified immunity because the law was not clear at the time whether university officials can discipline students for actions like this. [read post]
26 Aug 2019, 6:43 am
The Court of Appeals (Jacobs, Leval and Furman [D.J.]) notes that staff knew about plaintiff's need for the ASL accommodation, as plaintiff and her husband had repeatedly asked nurses for an interpreter. [read post]
18 Jul 2017, 5:28 am
Citing the ministerial exception, the district court dismissed the case on summary judgment, and the Second Circuit (Sack, Lohier and Woods [D.J.]) affirms.Judge Sack provides a comprehensive overview of the ministerial exception, drawing from Supreme Court and other authorities in noting that the values promoted by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting gender and other forms of employment discrimination) clash with the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First… [read post]
7 Nov 2023, 6:37 am
Capra, a summary order issued on November 1. [read post]
4 Apr 2014, 7:54 am
But as the Court of Appeals (Jacobs, Pooler and Reiss [D.J.]) writes:McCulloch presents no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the Defendants harbored animus against Hispanics, or that animus played a role in the restrictions imposed on McCulloch’s subdivision. [read post]
10 Mar 2020, 6:16 am
The Court of Appeals (Cabranes, Bianco and Reiss [D.J.]) rules that the district court resolved disputed facts in dismissing the case.The district court first got it wrong in holding plaintiff to the "but-for" causation standard at the prima facie portion of the case. [read post]
24 Sep 2019, 10:00 am
The district court dismissed Kelleher's case, the Court of Appeals (Jacobs, Leval and Furman [D.J.]) brings it back. [read post]
16 Mar 2020, 8:14 am
This instruction was proper, the Court of Appeals (Chin, Carney and Sannes [D.J.]) holds, in light of Brinks v. [read post]
18 Jun 2019, 11:16 am
In the end, the entire case got dismissed because Jefferson was unable to pay the $300.00.The Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Droney and Underhill [D.J.]) reinstates the case and vacates the sanction to boot. [read post]
21 Apr 2015, 9:41 am
Campbell, decided on April 1. [read post]
11 Nov 2022, 6:49 am
The district court said this is not enough for a Title VII case, and the Court of Appeals (Walker, Sullivan and Vyskocil [D.J.]) affirms. [read post]
1 Aug 2017, 6:41 am
The district court granted plaintiff summary judgment in this case on her due process case, and the Court of Appeals (Calabresi, Pooler and Vilardo [D.J.]) affirms.Judge Calabresi tees up the analysis like this:The facts relevant to this appeal are largely undisputed. [read post]
3 Nov 2010, 5:18 am
Sept. 7, 2010); In re Application of U.S., Nos. 1:06-MC-6, 1:06-MC-7, 2006 WL 1876847 (N.D. [read post]
21 Dec 2020, 6:16 am
Factor 4 is inapplicable because DOL did not get involved, and factors 1 and 2 favor plaintiff, but only slightly. [read post]
14 Sep 2014, 5:25 pm
Id. at *1. [read post]
