Search for: "Matter of Ramos v Ramos" Results 81 - 100 of 217
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
2 Apr 2015, 3:34 pm by Stephen Bilkis
Contrary to ACS's contention, the deprivation of the right to counsel is a [29 A.D.3d 1016] fundamental error warranting reversal (see Matter of Otto v Otto, 26 AD3d 498 [2006]; Matter of Miranda v Vasquez, 14 AD3d 566 [2005]; Matter of Knight v Griffith, 13 AD3d 449 [2004]; Matter of Vladimir M., 206 AD2d 482, 483 [1994]; Matter of Williams v Williams, 91 AD2d 1044, 1045 [1983]). [read post]
19 Jul 2023, 6:16 am by Second Circuit Civil Rights Blog
The fact that plaintiff's formal termination did not take place for a few months does not undermine her retaliation claim as a matter of law. [read post]
2 Nov 2014, 5:13 pm by Joey Fishkin
 What matters is the aggregate numbers. [read post]
22 May 2024, 10:12 am by Dylan Gibbs
Lozada and Ramos threw punches and kicks. [read post]
15 Jun 2015, 8:59 am by Steve Vladeck
Mata appealed that decision to the Fifth Circuit, which held, based upon its 2008 ruling in Ramos-Bonilla v. [read post]
4 Sep 2009, 1:12 pm
U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, August 24, 2009 Crawford v. [read post]
26 Jul 2010, 4:00 am by Peter A. Mahler
  Justice Ramos's December 2008 decision denied the motion, holding that under the First Department's decision in Littman v. [read post]