Search for: "Miller v. Department of Corrections" Results 81 - 100 of 327
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
19 May 2008, 8:55 am
"Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl U.S. [read post]
6 Mar 2008, 12:27 am
APPELLATE DIVISIONTHIRD DEPARTMENTCivil Practice‘Mendon Ponds' Filing Error Affects Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Cannot Be Corrected Under CPLR 2001 Matter of Miller, respondent v. [read post]
10 Jun 2008, 2:36 pm
"Findlaw summaries [may] include opoinions that have not yet been released for publication and may be subject to modification, correction or withdrawl U.S. [read post]
13 Jun 2008, 7:54 am
A panel of the Sixth Circuit recently held in Warshak v. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am by Wolfgang Demino
(Attachments: # 1 Corrected Complaint, # 2 Corrected Motion and Memorandum for Temporary Restraining Order)(Gupta, Deepak) (Entered: 11/27/2017)11/27/2017Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. [read post]
27 Dec 2017, 11:19 am by Wolfgang Demino
(Attachments: # 1 Corrected Complaint, # 2 Corrected Motion and Memorandum for Temporary Restraining Order)(Gupta, Deepak) (Entered: 11/27/2017)11/27/2017Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Timothy J. [read post]
16 Feb 2017, 2:46 am by Dennis Crouch
Aultman-Miller Co., 169 U.S. 606 (1898): The only authority competent to set a patent aside, or to annul it, or to correct it for any reason whatever, is vested in the courts of the United States, and not in the department which issued the patent. [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Plaintiff commenced this action in federal court against, among others, Miller, the police department, and the City of Binghamton (the City). [read post]
28 Mar 2022, 7:30 am by Public Employment Law Press
Plaintiff commenced this action in federal court against, among others, Miller, the police department, and the City of Binghamton (the City). [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 11:13 am by Joshua Drexler
Department of Corrections, where the California Supreme Court found that the plaintiffs had been subjected to harassment through their coworkers’ romance. [read post]