Search for: "State v. Fink"
Results 81 - 100
of 129
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 May 2008, 7:00 am
Prosecutors, like judges, must be free to do their jobs without fear of being sued later, the high court said in the case of Imbler v. [read post]
9 Apr 2024, 5:01 am
From Friday's decision by Judge Denise Cote (S.D.N.Y.) in Farrakhan v. [read post]
22 Dec 2014, 9:43 am
Michelle V. [read post]
29 Mar 2018, 1:38 pm
Thanks also to Bryan Skarlatos of Kostelanetz & Fink, LLP, Nancy Gertner, Retired U.S. [read post]
28 Jan 2016, 8:00 am
Arthur v. [read post]
1 Jul 2021, 1:46 pm
State v. [read post]
13 Sep 2007, 10:48 am
See International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. [read post]
15 Jun 2007, 3:12 pm
State Bar, 52 Cal. 2d 310, 320 (1959); Brockway v. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 12:27 pm
Mason, 527 F.3d 252, 255 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. [read post]
7 Jan 2023, 11:37 am
State v. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 3:18 am
Poll: “Shareholder” v. [read post]
28 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
Schwartz, Sabastian V. [read post]
28 Jan 2023, 6:30 am
Schwartz, Sabastian V. [read post]
28 Oct 2014, 1:30 pm
Fink 14-281Issue: Whether a state's reduction of medical benefits to some categories of legal aliens but not others, conducted within the discretion afforded to the states by Congress under the cooperative Medicaid program, is subject only to rational-basis review when it is challenged as a denial of equal protection. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 3:45 am
In State v. [read post]
25 Oct 2012, 3:14 am
Under 22 NYCRR 202.27, a court may dismiss an action when a plaintiff is unprepared to proceed to trial at the call of the calendar (see Fink v Antell, 19 AD3d 215; Johnson v Brooklyn Hosp. [read post]
19 Apr 2018, 3:18 am
Poll: “Shareholder” v. [read post]
25 Jul 2007, 1:24 am
Kaplan on Monday prevented attorneys Robert Fink and Caroline Rule from withdrawing as defense counsel to former KPMG partner Richard Smith in United States v. [read post]
20 May 2016, 1:15 pm
I’m delighted to report that the Michigan Court of Appeals has just upheld a Twitter parodist’s First Amendment claim in the “badass lawyer” case, Levitt v. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 6:05 am
While critics have branded the de facto blockade as illegal, they did so because Russia’s actions failed to satisfy all the requirements for imposing a lawful blockade (authority, notification, effectiveness, impartiality, limited scope; see Commander’s Handbook, 7.7.2), not because the operation was unavailable to Russia as a matter of law as an aggressor-State (see Kraska at 553-54; Fink). [read post]
